the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Jan 2025
Usability and motivational impact of a fast-paced immersive virtual reality lecture on international middle school students in geoscience education
Abstract. Immersive Virtual Reality (VR) offers educators an innovative tool to teach geoscience, addressing challenges in conveying the Earth’s 3D characteristics traditionally taught through field visits and experiences that are often inaccessible to many due to socioeconomic, political, and logistical barriers. VR provides an alternative experience, allowing users to virtually explore geological sites beyond physical and situational constraints. Despite its potential, the implementation of geoscience-focused VR lectures remains largely unexplored. As a pioneering case study, this research investigates the usability and motivational impact of VR by developing a fast-paced virtual reality lecture on landslides for middle school students. Approximately 60 students from diverse cultural and educational backgrounds participated. Results revealed that the VR lecture was usable, with key strengths in its ability to engage students and deliver satisfaction. Compared to traditional teaching methods (lecture and hands-on), VR excelled in fostering interest, enjoyment, and perceived choice. This study provides valuable insights into the practical implementation of VR in geoscience education, demonstrating its potential to make geoscience topics more accessible and engaging for diverse student groups. Future research should explore strategies to address usability challenges and enhance the motivational attributes of VR, paving the way for its broader adoption in geoscience educational settings.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1202 KB)
-
Supplement
(23 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1202 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(23 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-129', Liam Taylor, 03 Mar 2025
This is an interesting study that offers an excellent commentary on the practicalities, benefits, and limitations of using VR for geoscience communication activities. The methodology of the study allows for a robust evaluation of the effectiveness of the activity in comparison to traditional (e.g. lecture-based) educational delivery. I particularly value the detail of the study setup provided through Section 2 to allow others to broadly replicate the activity. Overall, I recommend publication of this manuscript with some minor changes:
- The introduction / rationale for the study should include further references to literature that demonstrates a VR-lecture approach – e.g. Jong et al. (2020), Hagge (2024), and Harknett et al. (2022) (Full references below). The study rightly outlines that there is a clear gap in the literature for the evaluation of VR-based pedagogies, but there has been some work in this field that goes above and beyond that presented in Lines 73 – 80.
- The development of the activity (lines 142 – 147) is good and this level of specificity is very helpful – did you choose to custom design this activity because there were no ready-to-go apps that suited this purpose? It might be helpful for a reader looking to replicate your activity to understand the decision-making behind putting extensive effort in to this design.
- The presentation of results through Section 3.2 is good, but a table that compares the total scores between the VR, lecture, and hands-on activity would be beneficial to allow an easier comparison between the activities.
- Following on from (2), it’d be interesting to hear some further reflection (beyond what is suggested in lines 378 – 379) on the lack of a significant difference in perceived competence. This opens a broader question that many VR-based pedagogy studies have seldom addressed – is the time and cost effort of creating VR activities worth it if attainment and understanding of taught concepts is largely the same? Some reflection from the authors on this point (perhaps in Section 4.3) would help to draw out the purpose and value of bringing VR into education spaces.
- The conclusion notes that students had a motivational preference for VR teaching (line 478), but then subsequently that the activity could be made better to improve motivation (line 481) – please just check these sentences for this contradiction!
Dr Liam Taylor, School of Geography, University of Leeds
Hagge, P.D. 2024. Metaverse in in the geography lecture classroom? Evaluating ‘group VR’ possibilities using the multiplayer ‘Wooorld’ VR app. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 48(5): 864-872.
Harknett, J., Whitworth, M., Rust, D. et al. 2022. The use of immersive virtual reality for teaching fieldwork skills in complex structural terrains. Journal of Structural Geology 163.
Jong, M.S-Y., Tsai, C-C., Xie, H. et al. 2020. Integrating interactive learner-immersed video-based virtual reality into learning and teaching of physical geography. British Journal of Educational Technology 51(6): 2064-2079.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-129-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Azim Zulhilmi, 03 May 2025
Dear Dr. Liam Taylor,
We would like to express our gratitude for your interest and taking your time to review our manuscript. We address your inquiries in a point-by-point manner below. (Page and line numbers reflects the new manuscript)
- The introduction / rationale for the study should include further references to literature that demonstrates a VR-lecture approach – e.g. Jong et al. (2020), Hagge (2024), and Harknett et al. (2022) (Full references below). The study rightly outlines that there is a clear gap in the literature for the evaluation of VR-based pedagogies, but there has been some work in this field that goes above and beyond that presented in Lines 73 – 80.
Thank you very much for suggesting these articles. We will include these articles in the literature review section and integrate them into the rationale paragraph.
Below will be the new additions to the manuscript:
“Harknett et al. (2022) used VR for teaching students’ structural geology fieldwork skills in structurally complex volcanic terrains noting its potential role to play in existing geoscience education curricula.” (Page 2, Line 75-77)
“Jong et al. (2020) applied spherical video-based VR and found positive results on its pedagogical effectiveness on teaching physical geography.” (Page 3, Line 85-86)
“However, despite these growing strategies, a gap remains in evaluating the effectiveness of VR-based pedagogies (Jong et al. 2020; Harknett et al. 2022; Hagge, 2024) such as in formal geoscience education. Further contribution is necessary, especially in integrating the lecture component of traditional geoscience education with VR.” (Page 3, Line 89-92)
- The development of the activity (lines 142 – 147) is good and this level of specificity is very helpful – did you choose to custom design this activity because there were no ready-to-go apps that suited this purpose? It might be helpful for a reader looking to replicate your activity to understand the decision-making behind putting extensive effort into this design.
Thank you for the comment and inquiry. Yes, we designed it ourselves, partly because no existing apps met our specific needs and partly due to the constraints of limited time and a large pool of participants. As a result, a custom experience had to be developed.
This workflow may be useful for readers planning a time-limited study while gathering a substantial sample size. We will add a brief introductory paragraph about this in Section 2.2.
Below will be the new additions to the manuscript:
“The VR lecture had to adhere to the limitations of time and participant numbers. Furthermore, the goal was to fully leverage the unique capabilities of VR for presenting geoscience materials. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no existing applications met this specific need, so it was a requirement to develop a custom designed method that aligns with the principles of VR-based lectures.” (Page 4, Line 135-139)
- The presentation of results through Section 3.2 is good, but a table that compares the total scores between the VR, lecture, and hands-on activity would be beneficial to allow an easier comparison between the activities.
Thank you for your suggestion. we will add the table (as table 5) for the convenience of the readers at the end of Section 3.2.
In addition to the new table, below is an additional paragraph that we will add to introduce the table:
“Table 5 shows an overall comparison of the motivational impacts between the VR, Lecture, and Hands-on activity for all grades combined. The VR tends to score highest except for the Effort/Importance and Pressure/Tension, while the Hands-on often comes to the second.” (Page 11, Line 305-307)
- Following on from (2), it’d be interesting to hear some further reflection (beyond what is suggested in lines 378 – 379) on the lack of a significant difference in perceived competence. This opens a broader question that many VR-based pedagogy studies have seldom addressed – is the time and cost effort of creating VR activities worth it if attainment and understanding of taught concepts is largely the same? Some reflection from the authors on this point (perhaps in Section 4.3) would help to draw out the purpose and value of bringing VR into education spaces.
This is a good point! To address this comment, we will add an additional paragraph about our stance on this in section 4.3 of the discussion.
In summary, we agree that it can be a significant barrier in adoption. But still, it offers additional benefits that traditional methods cannot. It provides various innovative ways to, and for the first time, effectively communicate the true 3D nature and scale of geoscience concepts to students. Perhaps, such advantages garner potential for long-term benefits such as improved retention and increased motivation.
Still, we raised some very important concerns in Section 4.4, that acts as a pathway to guide further studies hoping that our fellow community can build upon and contribute as a collective.
Below will be the new additions to the manuscript:
“The time and cost factor may be a significant barrier for the global adoption of VR lectures in geoscience education. For example, creating and editing 3D data can be technically demanding and time-consuming for geoscience researchers and educators who may not have advanced computational expertise, and financial constraints often limit access to high-performance computers and HMD devices. However, it can offer additional benefits that traditional methods often struggle to deliver as discussed (e.g., taking young students to dangerous field sites and various data presentation possibilities). Even if both VR and traditional methods yield similar learning gain in the short term, the long-term impact of VR should be considered as well, such as improved retention, increased motivation, and the ability to intuitively grasp complex spatial relationships of geological subjects, may justify the additional time and cost. Furthermore, as VR development tools for geosciences become more standardized and user-friendly, and as the cost of necessary VR devices continues to decrease, the initial investment in content creation may be repaid over repeated use, making it a potentially viable long-term educational strategy. Further research is still required for more definitive conclusions, leading to the next section.” (Page 17, Line 482-495)
- The conclusion notes that students had a motivational preference for VR teaching (line 478), but then subsequently that the activity could be made better to improve motivation (line 481) – please just check these sentences for this contradiction!
In this section, we intended to convey that the middle school students preferred VR when compared to traditional methods. Regarding the second sentence, our aim was to highlight the potential for further improving the VR lecture architecture to yield stronger conclusions.
Pardon the writing, your comment is actually a good highlight, and we appreciate it, as it could potentially lead to confusion for future readers. To address this, we will reword the sentences for clarity and improved readability.
Below will be the new changes to the sentences:
“Overall, students showed a clear motivational preference for VR when compared to the traditional teaching methods.” (Page 18, Line 529-530)
“But regardless, there remains for more potential improvements in the VR lecture architecture particularly to further enhancing its usability and motivational aspects.” (Page 18, Line 531-532)
Kind regards on behalf of all co-authors,
Azim Zulhilmi
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-129-AC1
- The introduction / rationale for the study should include further references to literature that demonstrates a VR-lecture approach – e.g. Jong et al. (2020), Hagge (2024), and Harknett et al. (2022) (Full references below). The study rightly outlines that there is a clear gap in the literature for the evaluation of VR-based pedagogies, but there has been some work in this field that goes above and beyond that presented in Lines 73 – 80.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-129', Lynda Yorke, 21 Apr 2025
This is a timely article given the increased interest in and use of VR in geosciences teaching. The authors guide us through the current state of the reserach in this field, and outline the challenges and opportunities posed by adopting VR in 'classroom-based' teaching. The approach they have adopted in novel, with most users of VR taking more of a field guide rather than virtual lecturer appraoch. The methods chosen to assess/evaluate the effectiveness of the approach are robust. There is a lot of critical reflection by the authors in terms of their data and the meaning, as well as an awarness of their positionality in the process. I would recommend this be accepted with minor revisions.
1. The methdology section needed a little more detail on the traditional lecture and activities (section 2.4, line 200). It wasn't clear what those activities (or hands-on session) were or how they might engaged the learners. It was also not clear whether activities and/or a lecture was part of the approach in section 2.4, but it was clearly mentioned as an approach in line 121. Some clarification for the reader to make it clear would be helpful here.
2. Whilst the focus of the article is on the motivational and usability of VR in geosciences teaching, it might be helpful to include/reflect on the potential learning gain of utilising VR instead of traditional approaches to teaching. I appreciate this cannot be measured based on the research, but this is something that VR has the potential to improve for some learners. This could be mentioned in the literature review, and there are a number of recent (since 2020) systematic reviews/meta-analysese that have addressed learning outcomes from VR in middle schools/their equivalents.
3. It was great to read about the critiques/limitations that the researcher encountered, but I wonder if there is more scope for including some reflections on the time/effort aspects of this approach to teaching and learning. Producing content for VR is more than just writing a lecture, it is all the associated technical work and planning required. This has been raised in publications around developing virtual fieldwork resources/digital approaches to teaching. Given the time/effort component of the developmental work by the authors, there is scope for a few sentances on this aspect as it is useful to acknowledge that 'unseen' aspect.
4. With VR approaches to teaching, equity and inclusion are issues that are not fully acknowledged/addressed here. When looking forwards to the application of such approaches it is important to acknowledge who might be excluded and who has access to this technology? Also, to consider the impacts on staff in terms of development of the resouces (see point 3). There is scope for acknowledgement of some of the issues (challenges) around VR in the classroom.
Just some very minor typos/formatting to note:
Line 41 suggest replacing 'the masses' with all.
Line 100 could the objectives be distilled into obj. (i) and obj. (ii)?
Lines 113-115 assuming I have not misunderstood that a 'private institution' is an independent (fee-paying) school, then could a sentance acknowledging that there could be a 'class' bias in the sample population be added?
Line 136 should that be ARE and not is guided?
Line 200 should that be 'For THE other lecture...'?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-129-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Azim Zulhilmi, 03 May 2025
Dear Dr. Lynda Yorke,
We would like to express our gratitude for your interest and taking your time to review our manuscript. We address your inquiries in a point-by-point manner below. (Page and line numbers reflects the new manuscript)
- The methodology section needed a little more detail on the traditional lecture and activities (section 2.4, line 200). It wasn't clear what those activities (or hands-on session) were or how they might engaged the learners. It was also not clear whether activities and/or a lecture was part of the approach in section 2.4, but it was clearly mentioned as an approach in line 121. Some clarification for the reader to make it clear would be helpful here.
Thank you for the suggestion. To address this comment and provide greater clarity for readers, we will add details about the traditional activity sessions and how they engaged learners at the end of Section 2.4.
Below will be the new addition to the manuscript:
“In the traditional activity sessions, students participate in a standard face-to-face lecture, allowing them to listen to and interact with the instructor in a typical classroom setting. For the hands-on session, they engage with 3D-printed models and even have the opportunity to watch and interact with the drones.” (Page 8, Line 215-218)
- Whilst the focus of the article is on the motivational and usability of VR in geosciences teaching, it might be helpful to include/reflect on the potential learning gain of utilising VR instead of traditional approaches to teaching. I appreciate this cannot be measured based on the research, but this is something that VR has the potential to improve for some learners. This could be mentioned in the literature review, and there are a number of recent (since 2020) systematic reviews/meta-analyses that have addressed learning outcomes from VR in middle schools/their equivalents.
Thank you for the suggestion. This is a good point! In general, VR does enhance students' knowledge gain. We will add additional citations from reviews and meta-analyses in the Introduction, before the Literature Review, as we feel this placement is more fitting to provide a smoother transition and improve the overall flow toward the next section.
Below will be the new addition to the manuscript:
“Furthermore, it is well understood from meta-analyses studies and reviews that VR can yield improvements on students learning at the elementary, middle, and high school education (Merchant et al., 2014; Di Natale et al., 2020; Villena-Taranilla, 2022). (Page 2, Line 47-50)
- It was great to read about the critiques/limitations that the researcher encountered, but I wonder if there is more scope for including some reflections on the time/effort aspects of this approach to teaching and learning. Producing content for VR is more than just writing a lecture, it is all the associated technical work and planning required. This has been raised in publications around developing virtual fieldwork resources/digital approaches to teaching. Given the time/effort component of the developmental work by the authors, there is scope for a few sentences on this aspect as it is useful to acknowledge that 'unseen' aspect.
It is true that producing content for VR lectures is significantly different from preparing traditional lectures. Based on our experience, it requires preparation and skills beyond simply having knowledge of geoscience subject matter.
To address this suggestion, we will add a paragraph in Section 4.3 as an advice for future readers to be aware of such challenges.
Below will be the new addition to the manuscript:
“It should be noted that developing VR-based educational materials can be time and effort intensive which is quite unlike traditional lecture preparation. Practitioners looking into tackling such topic may currently require some proficiency in game/3D engines, troubleshooting, user testing, iterative refinement process and sufficient knowledge in the geoscience subject matter for successful development of VR geoscience educational materials. These invisible workloads have highlighted the difficulties of VR approaches in prior research (Lütjens et al., 2019; Akbulut and Anani 2019; Novotny et al., 2019).” (Page 17, Line 475-481)
- With VR approaches to teaching, equity and inclusion are issues that are not fully acknowledged/addressed here. When looking forwards to the application of such approaches it is important to acknowledge who might be excluded and who has access to this technology? Also, to consider the impacts on staff in terms of development of the resources (see point 3). There is scope for acknowledgement of some of the issues (challenges) around VR in the classroom.
Thank you for this suggestion. You are correct that, while VR expands access to geoscience education for some groups, such as individuals with mobility impairments, it still does not fully accommodate everyone for example, those who are visually impaired, and may remain more accessible to more affluent individuals.
To address this point, we will acknowledge this in Section 4.3.
Below will be the new addition to the manuscript:
“Although VR can significantly improve accessibility for individuals with impaired mobility by offering virtual experiences that eliminate physical barriers, it remains largely unusable for individuals with highly impaired vision (those that cannot be fixed with prescription lenses), those with certain neurological or vestibular conditions, and for individuals who cannot afford these devices due to financial limitations.” (Page 17 & 18, Line 467-471)
- Just some very minor typos/formatting: Line 41 suggest replacing 'the masses' with all. Line 100 could the objectives be distilled into obj. (i) and obj. (ii)? Lines 113-115 assuming I have not misunderstood that a 'private institution' is an independent (fee-paying) school, then could a sentance acknowledging that there could be a 'class' bias in the sample population be added? Line 136 should that be ARE and not is guided? Line 200 should that be 'For THE other lecture...'?
Thank you for identifying the typos and providing further suggestions. We very much appreciate it and fully agree with all the recommendations.
Below will be the new additions to the manuscript:
Change “for the masses” to “all” (Page 1, Line 41)
Distil objectives into bullet points (Page 3, Line 108-115)
Change “is” to “are” (Page 4, Line 151)
“In the traditional activity sessions, students participate in a standard face-to-face lecture, allowing them to listen to and interact with the instructor in a typical classroom setting. For the hands-on session, they engage with 3D-printed models and even have the opportunity to watch and interact with the drones.” (Page 8, Line 215-218)
“Additionally, the sample may exhibit some class bias, as the school is a private institution catering primarily to foreign clients.” (Page 17, Line 501-502)
Kind regards on behalf of all co-authors,
Azim Zulhilmi
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-129-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Azim Zulhilmi, 03 May 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-129', Liam Taylor, 03 Mar 2025
This is an interesting study that offers an excellent commentary on the practicalities, benefits, and limitations of using VR for geoscience communication activities. The methodology of the study allows for a robust evaluation of the effectiveness of the activity in comparison to traditional (e.g. lecture-based) educational delivery. I particularly value the detail of the study setup provided through Section 2 to allow others to broadly replicate the activity. Overall, I recommend publication of this manuscript with some minor changes:
- The introduction / rationale for the study should include further references to literature that demonstrates a VR-lecture approach – e.g. Jong et al. (2020), Hagge (2024), and Harknett et al. (2022) (Full references below). The study rightly outlines that there is a clear gap in the literature for the evaluation of VR-based pedagogies, but there has been some work in this field that goes above and beyond that presented in Lines 73 – 80.
- The development of the activity (lines 142 – 147) is good and this level of specificity is very helpful – did you choose to custom design this activity because there were no ready-to-go apps that suited this purpose? It might be helpful for a reader looking to replicate your activity to understand the decision-making behind putting extensive effort in to this design.
- The presentation of results through Section 3.2 is good, but a table that compares the total scores between the VR, lecture, and hands-on activity would be beneficial to allow an easier comparison between the activities.
- Following on from (2), it’d be interesting to hear some further reflection (beyond what is suggested in lines 378 – 379) on the lack of a significant difference in perceived competence. This opens a broader question that many VR-based pedagogy studies have seldom addressed – is the time and cost effort of creating VR activities worth it if attainment and understanding of taught concepts is largely the same? Some reflection from the authors on this point (perhaps in Section 4.3) would help to draw out the purpose and value of bringing VR into education spaces.
- The conclusion notes that students had a motivational preference for VR teaching (line 478), but then subsequently that the activity could be made better to improve motivation (line 481) – please just check these sentences for this contradiction!
Dr Liam Taylor, School of Geography, University of Leeds
Hagge, P.D. 2024. Metaverse in in the geography lecture classroom? Evaluating ‘group VR’ possibilities using the multiplayer ‘Wooorld’ VR app. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 48(5): 864-872.
Harknett, J., Whitworth, M., Rust, D. et al. 2022. The use of immersive virtual reality for teaching fieldwork skills in complex structural terrains. Journal of Structural Geology 163.
Jong, M.S-Y., Tsai, C-C., Xie, H. et al. 2020. Integrating interactive learner-immersed video-based virtual reality into learning and teaching of physical geography. British Journal of Educational Technology 51(6): 2064-2079.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-129-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Azim Zulhilmi, 03 May 2025
Dear Dr. Liam Taylor,
We would like to express our gratitude for your interest and taking your time to review our manuscript. We address your inquiries in a point-by-point manner below. (Page and line numbers reflects the new manuscript)
- The introduction / rationale for the study should include further references to literature that demonstrates a VR-lecture approach – e.g. Jong et al. (2020), Hagge (2024), and Harknett et al. (2022) (Full references below). The study rightly outlines that there is a clear gap in the literature for the evaluation of VR-based pedagogies, but there has been some work in this field that goes above and beyond that presented in Lines 73 – 80.
Thank you very much for suggesting these articles. We will include these articles in the literature review section and integrate them into the rationale paragraph.
Below will be the new additions to the manuscript:
“Harknett et al. (2022) used VR for teaching students’ structural geology fieldwork skills in structurally complex volcanic terrains noting its potential role to play in existing geoscience education curricula.” (Page 2, Line 75-77)
“Jong et al. (2020) applied spherical video-based VR and found positive results on its pedagogical effectiveness on teaching physical geography.” (Page 3, Line 85-86)
“However, despite these growing strategies, a gap remains in evaluating the effectiveness of VR-based pedagogies (Jong et al. 2020; Harknett et al. 2022; Hagge, 2024) such as in formal geoscience education. Further contribution is necessary, especially in integrating the lecture component of traditional geoscience education with VR.” (Page 3, Line 89-92)
- The development of the activity (lines 142 – 147) is good and this level of specificity is very helpful – did you choose to custom design this activity because there were no ready-to-go apps that suited this purpose? It might be helpful for a reader looking to replicate your activity to understand the decision-making behind putting extensive effort into this design.
Thank you for the comment and inquiry. Yes, we designed it ourselves, partly because no existing apps met our specific needs and partly due to the constraints of limited time and a large pool of participants. As a result, a custom experience had to be developed.
This workflow may be useful for readers planning a time-limited study while gathering a substantial sample size. We will add a brief introductory paragraph about this in Section 2.2.
Below will be the new additions to the manuscript:
“The VR lecture had to adhere to the limitations of time and participant numbers. Furthermore, the goal was to fully leverage the unique capabilities of VR for presenting geoscience materials. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no existing applications met this specific need, so it was a requirement to develop a custom designed method that aligns with the principles of VR-based lectures.” (Page 4, Line 135-139)
- The presentation of results through Section 3.2 is good, but a table that compares the total scores between the VR, lecture, and hands-on activity would be beneficial to allow an easier comparison between the activities.
Thank you for your suggestion. we will add the table (as table 5) for the convenience of the readers at the end of Section 3.2.
In addition to the new table, below is an additional paragraph that we will add to introduce the table:
“Table 5 shows an overall comparison of the motivational impacts between the VR, Lecture, and Hands-on activity for all grades combined. The VR tends to score highest except for the Effort/Importance and Pressure/Tension, while the Hands-on often comes to the second.” (Page 11, Line 305-307)
- Following on from (2), it’d be interesting to hear some further reflection (beyond what is suggested in lines 378 – 379) on the lack of a significant difference in perceived competence. This opens a broader question that many VR-based pedagogy studies have seldom addressed – is the time and cost effort of creating VR activities worth it if attainment and understanding of taught concepts is largely the same? Some reflection from the authors on this point (perhaps in Section 4.3) would help to draw out the purpose and value of bringing VR into education spaces.
This is a good point! To address this comment, we will add an additional paragraph about our stance on this in section 4.3 of the discussion.
In summary, we agree that it can be a significant barrier in adoption. But still, it offers additional benefits that traditional methods cannot. It provides various innovative ways to, and for the first time, effectively communicate the true 3D nature and scale of geoscience concepts to students. Perhaps, such advantages garner potential for long-term benefits such as improved retention and increased motivation.
Still, we raised some very important concerns in Section 4.4, that acts as a pathway to guide further studies hoping that our fellow community can build upon and contribute as a collective.
Below will be the new additions to the manuscript:
“The time and cost factor may be a significant barrier for the global adoption of VR lectures in geoscience education. For example, creating and editing 3D data can be technically demanding and time-consuming for geoscience researchers and educators who may not have advanced computational expertise, and financial constraints often limit access to high-performance computers and HMD devices. However, it can offer additional benefits that traditional methods often struggle to deliver as discussed (e.g., taking young students to dangerous field sites and various data presentation possibilities). Even if both VR and traditional methods yield similar learning gain in the short term, the long-term impact of VR should be considered as well, such as improved retention, increased motivation, and the ability to intuitively grasp complex spatial relationships of geological subjects, may justify the additional time and cost. Furthermore, as VR development tools for geosciences become more standardized and user-friendly, and as the cost of necessary VR devices continues to decrease, the initial investment in content creation may be repaid over repeated use, making it a potentially viable long-term educational strategy. Further research is still required for more definitive conclusions, leading to the next section.” (Page 17, Line 482-495)
- The conclusion notes that students had a motivational preference for VR teaching (line 478), but then subsequently that the activity could be made better to improve motivation (line 481) – please just check these sentences for this contradiction!
In this section, we intended to convey that the middle school students preferred VR when compared to traditional methods. Regarding the second sentence, our aim was to highlight the potential for further improving the VR lecture architecture to yield stronger conclusions.
Pardon the writing, your comment is actually a good highlight, and we appreciate it, as it could potentially lead to confusion for future readers. To address this, we will reword the sentences for clarity and improved readability.
Below will be the new changes to the sentences:
“Overall, students showed a clear motivational preference for VR when compared to the traditional teaching methods.” (Page 18, Line 529-530)
“But regardless, there remains for more potential improvements in the VR lecture architecture particularly to further enhancing its usability and motivational aspects.” (Page 18, Line 531-532)
Kind regards on behalf of all co-authors,
Azim Zulhilmi
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-129-AC1
- The introduction / rationale for the study should include further references to literature that demonstrates a VR-lecture approach – e.g. Jong et al. (2020), Hagge (2024), and Harknett et al. (2022) (Full references below). The study rightly outlines that there is a clear gap in the literature for the evaluation of VR-based pedagogies, but there has been some work in this field that goes above and beyond that presented in Lines 73 – 80.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-129', Lynda Yorke, 21 Apr 2025
This is a timely article given the increased interest in and use of VR in geosciences teaching. The authors guide us through the current state of the reserach in this field, and outline the challenges and opportunities posed by adopting VR in 'classroom-based' teaching. The approach they have adopted in novel, with most users of VR taking more of a field guide rather than virtual lecturer appraoch. The methods chosen to assess/evaluate the effectiveness of the approach are robust. There is a lot of critical reflection by the authors in terms of their data and the meaning, as well as an awarness of their positionality in the process. I would recommend this be accepted with minor revisions.
1. The methdology section needed a little more detail on the traditional lecture and activities (section 2.4, line 200). It wasn't clear what those activities (or hands-on session) were or how they might engaged the learners. It was also not clear whether activities and/or a lecture was part of the approach in section 2.4, but it was clearly mentioned as an approach in line 121. Some clarification for the reader to make it clear would be helpful here.
2. Whilst the focus of the article is on the motivational and usability of VR in geosciences teaching, it might be helpful to include/reflect on the potential learning gain of utilising VR instead of traditional approaches to teaching. I appreciate this cannot be measured based on the research, but this is something that VR has the potential to improve for some learners. This could be mentioned in the literature review, and there are a number of recent (since 2020) systematic reviews/meta-analysese that have addressed learning outcomes from VR in middle schools/their equivalents.
3. It was great to read about the critiques/limitations that the researcher encountered, but I wonder if there is more scope for including some reflections on the time/effort aspects of this approach to teaching and learning. Producing content for VR is more than just writing a lecture, it is all the associated technical work and planning required. This has been raised in publications around developing virtual fieldwork resources/digital approaches to teaching. Given the time/effort component of the developmental work by the authors, there is scope for a few sentances on this aspect as it is useful to acknowledge that 'unseen' aspect.
4. With VR approaches to teaching, equity and inclusion are issues that are not fully acknowledged/addressed here. When looking forwards to the application of such approaches it is important to acknowledge who might be excluded and who has access to this technology? Also, to consider the impacts on staff in terms of development of the resouces (see point 3). There is scope for acknowledgement of some of the issues (challenges) around VR in the classroom.
Just some very minor typos/formatting to note:
Line 41 suggest replacing 'the masses' with all.
Line 100 could the objectives be distilled into obj. (i) and obj. (ii)?
Lines 113-115 assuming I have not misunderstood that a 'private institution' is an independent (fee-paying) school, then could a sentance acknowledging that there could be a 'class' bias in the sample population be added?
Line 136 should that be ARE and not is guided?
Line 200 should that be 'For THE other lecture...'?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-129-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Azim Zulhilmi, 03 May 2025
Dear Dr. Lynda Yorke,
We would like to express our gratitude for your interest and taking your time to review our manuscript. We address your inquiries in a point-by-point manner below. (Page and line numbers reflects the new manuscript)
- The methodology section needed a little more detail on the traditional lecture and activities (section 2.4, line 200). It wasn't clear what those activities (or hands-on session) were or how they might engaged the learners. It was also not clear whether activities and/or a lecture was part of the approach in section 2.4, but it was clearly mentioned as an approach in line 121. Some clarification for the reader to make it clear would be helpful here.
Thank you for the suggestion. To address this comment and provide greater clarity for readers, we will add details about the traditional activity sessions and how they engaged learners at the end of Section 2.4.
Below will be the new addition to the manuscript:
“In the traditional activity sessions, students participate in a standard face-to-face lecture, allowing them to listen to and interact with the instructor in a typical classroom setting. For the hands-on session, they engage with 3D-printed models and even have the opportunity to watch and interact with the drones.” (Page 8, Line 215-218)
- Whilst the focus of the article is on the motivational and usability of VR in geosciences teaching, it might be helpful to include/reflect on the potential learning gain of utilising VR instead of traditional approaches to teaching. I appreciate this cannot be measured based on the research, but this is something that VR has the potential to improve for some learners. This could be mentioned in the literature review, and there are a number of recent (since 2020) systematic reviews/meta-analyses that have addressed learning outcomes from VR in middle schools/their equivalents.
Thank you for the suggestion. This is a good point! In general, VR does enhance students' knowledge gain. We will add additional citations from reviews and meta-analyses in the Introduction, before the Literature Review, as we feel this placement is more fitting to provide a smoother transition and improve the overall flow toward the next section.
Below will be the new addition to the manuscript:
“Furthermore, it is well understood from meta-analyses studies and reviews that VR can yield improvements on students learning at the elementary, middle, and high school education (Merchant et al., 2014; Di Natale et al., 2020; Villena-Taranilla, 2022). (Page 2, Line 47-50)
- It was great to read about the critiques/limitations that the researcher encountered, but I wonder if there is more scope for including some reflections on the time/effort aspects of this approach to teaching and learning. Producing content for VR is more than just writing a lecture, it is all the associated technical work and planning required. This has been raised in publications around developing virtual fieldwork resources/digital approaches to teaching. Given the time/effort component of the developmental work by the authors, there is scope for a few sentences on this aspect as it is useful to acknowledge that 'unseen' aspect.
It is true that producing content for VR lectures is significantly different from preparing traditional lectures. Based on our experience, it requires preparation and skills beyond simply having knowledge of geoscience subject matter.
To address this suggestion, we will add a paragraph in Section 4.3 as an advice for future readers to be aware of such challenges.
Below will be the new addition to the manuscript:
“It should be noted that developing VR-based educational materials can be time and effort intensive which is quite unlike traditional lecture preparation. Practitioners looking into tackling such topic may currently require some proficiency in game/3D engines, troubleshooting, user testing, iterative refinement process and sufficient knowledge in the geoscience subject matter for successful development of VR geoscience educational materials. These invisible workloads have highlighted the difficulties of VR approaches in prior research (Lütjens et al., 2019; Akbulut and Anani 2019; Novotny et al., 2019).” (Page 17, Line 475-481)
- With VR approaches to teaching, equity and inclusion are issues that are not fully acknowledged/addressed here. When looking forwards to the application of such approaches it is important to acknowledge who might be excluded and who has access to this technology? Also, to consider the impacts on staff in terms of development of the resources (see point 3). There is scope for acknowledgement of some of the issues (challenges) around VR in the classroom.
Thank you for this suggestion. You are correct that, while VR expands access to geoscience education for some groups, such as individuals with mobility impairments, it still does not fully accommodate everyone for example, those who are visually impaired, and may remain more accessible to more affluent individuals.
To address this point, we will acknowledge this in Section 4.3.
Below will be the new addition to the manuscript:
“Although VR can significantly improve accessibility for individuals with impaired mobility by offering virtual experiences that eliminate physical barriers, it remains largely unusable for individuals with highly impaired vision (those that cannot be fixed with prescription lenses), those with certain neurological or vestibular conditions, and for individuals who cannot afford these devices due to financial limitations.” (Page 17 & 18, Line 467-471)
- Just some very minor typos/formatting: Line 41 suggest replacing 'the masses' with all. Line 100 could the objectives be distilled into obj. (i) and obj. (ii)? Lines 113-115 assuming I have not misunderstood that a 'private institution' is an independent (fee-paying) school, then could a sentance acknowledging that there could be a 'class' bias in the sample population be added? Line 136 should that be ARE and not is guided? Line 200 should that be 'For THE other lecture...'?
Thank you for identifying the typos and providing further suggestions. We very much appreciate it and fully agree with all the recommendations.
Below will be the new additions to the manuscript:
Change “for the masses” to “all” (Page 1, Line 41)
Distil objectives into bullet points (Page 3, Line 108-115)
Change “is” to “are” (Page 4, Line 151)
“In the traditional activity sessions, students participate in a standard face-to-face lecture, allowing them to listen to and interact with the instructor in a typical classroom setting. For the hands-on session, they engage with 3D-printed models and even have the opportunity to watch and interact with the drones.” (Page 8, Line 215-218)
“Additionally, the sample may exhibit some class bias, as the school is a private institution catering primarily to foreign clients.” (Page 17, Line 501-502)
Kind regards on behalf of all co-authors,
Azim Zulhilmi
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-129-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Azim Zulhilmi, 03 May 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 393 | 111 | 26 | 530 | 25 | 12 | 27 |
- HTML: 393
- PDF: 111
- XML: 26
- Total: 530
- Supplement: 25
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Yuichi S. Hayakawa
Daniel R. Newman
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1202 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(23 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper