Digital Field Representations as a Holistic Approach to Experiential Learning in High Arctic Geoscience Field Education

Horota, Rafael Kenji; Eide, Christian Haug; Senger, Kim; Jonassen, Marius Opsanger; Kloet, Marie Annette Vander

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2248

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2248

Preprints

30 May 2025

| 30 May 2025

Digital Field Representations as a Holistic Approach to Experiential Learning in High Arctic Geoscience Field Education

Rafael Kenji Horota, Christian Haug Eide, Kim Senger, Marius Opsanger Jonassen, and Marie Annette Vander Kloet

Abstract. Field-based education is a cornerstone of geoscience learning, offering students the opportunity to connect theoretical knowledge with real-world geological contexts. Yet, access to such experiences remains limited due to logistical, financial, environmental, and social barriers, especially in remote or extreme environments like the High Arctic. In response to these challenges, Virtual Field Experiences (VFEs) are emerging as promising tools to complement traditional fieldwork. In this study we investigate how VFEs contribute to experiential learning among students at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS) in Longyearbyen, Svalbard.

Using a mixed-methods approach grounded in experiential learning theory and the Technology Acceptance Model, we surveyed 66 students who used VFEs as part of geoscience courses at UNIS before and after physical field excursions. Results reveal that students found VFEs particularly valuable for pre-field orientation, spatial awareness, and post-field reflection. Students reported improved readiness, deeper conceptual understanding, and enhanced engagement. The virtual representations enabled them to revisit complex sites, identify overlooked features, and consolidate observations made during fieldwork. Importantly, most participants did not see VFEs as a replacement for traditional fieldwork but recognized their role in making field learning more inclusive, repeatable, and accessible.

We highlight how VFEs can reduce cognitive overload by familiarizing students with unfamiliar environments, thus helping to manage the “novelty space” often experienced during initial field exposure. Students expressed strong interest in broader applications of VFEs across courses and disciplines, particularly when enriched with interactivity and guided tasks. These findings suggest that digital field representations hold significant promise for expanding access to geoscience education and enhancing learning outcomes. Future research should explore co-design practices with students and educators to optimize VFEs for equity, sustainability, and pedagogical impact across diverse learning environments.

Received: 13 May 2025 – Discussion started: 30 May 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Rafael Kenji Horota, Christian Haug Eide, Kim Senger, Marius Opsanger Jonassen, and Marie Annette Vander Kloet

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2248', Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, 06 Jul 2025

Thank you for the opportunity to read this piece. I encourage you to specify a few things, but my overall reading is that this is thorough and interesting study that address relevant questions within the scope of Geoscience Communication. The title is clear, and the abstract provides an appropriate summary of the study. The paper is well structured, and I have only found a few places where I hope the authors will be more precise in their use of language, these are indicated with specific line numbers below. I hope this review is helpful in your revision of the paper and I look forward to seeing it being published.
In the introduction, I enjoy your attention to making field work accessible and inclusive. I am missing that this is followed up in the analysis or discussion. What do you think the VR Svalbard is contributing with in this regard?

Line 34: The reference (Malm, 2020) is missing from the reference list, luckily, I am the author so here it is for your reference list: Malm, R. H. (2020). What is fieldwork for? Exploring Roles of Fieldwork in Higher Education Earth Science (Publication No. 2349) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo]. http://hdl.handle.net/10852/82828

Line 64: Add et al., to the reference Mead (2019) or add (Mead, 2019) to the reference list.

Line 67: Same comment as above, for reference Hay (2013).

Line 73: Same comment as above, for reference Guillaume (2023)

Line 77: Same comment, for Dolphin (2019) it should be Dolphin et al. (2019) for in-text citation.

Line 134: The reference (Senger et al., 2019) is missing from the reference list.
The scientific methods and assumptions are clearly outlined; however, a more thorough use of the theory would strengthen the paper. Kolb’s Experimental Learning Theory is appropriate and useful for the study; however, I am missing a description on how it is implemented in the study. You write in line 125: “By aligning with all stages of Kolb’s ELT, VFEs function not merely as digital replicas of fieldwork but as pedagogically rich platforms that expand access to geoscientific learning”, this I would like to know more about, in addition I would like to see the theory being used actively and utilized in the results and discussion sections. I appreciate the use of the Technology Acceptance Model and the evaluation considering the technical aspects of the VR. Section 4.2 (line 235) clearly outlines the usefulness of the tool and supplements the analysis well.
The results are sufficient to support some of the interpretations, but I would be careful to state firmly what students learn. For example, in section, 4.2.6 Learning outcomes and preparation, where you claim (line 366-7): “These results underscore the value of VFEs in preparing students for field activities and expanding their conceptual grasp of spatial and geological relationships.” I think there is a considerable gap between answering positive on ”feeling better prepared” and the tool ”complemented my learning” and claiming that the tool helps student conceptual understanding. I would read into these results that student opportunities or possibilities for learning is supported through the use of the tool. I do not think you can claim much about the actual learning with the survey, but I support your interpretation of the results as positive in the sense that it supports students’ possibilities for creating an aligned learning process and reduce novelty space, which I comment on below.
Line 403-4: Consider using another wording instead of ”created a clean foundation”. It sounds a bit like, ” there are no biases” in your study and I do not think you mean that. I understand it to be linked to the sentence before and refers to students not having ”technical limitations”. I would use more precise language as this will help the reader understand what you mean.
Line 415: Add et al., to the reference Needle (2022) or add (Needle, 2022) to the reference list.
I enjoyed your discussion on managing the novelty space in learning environments (line 422). In relation to my earlier comment on what you can claim, I think the tool very reasonably can be said to reduce the novelty of the field. Thus, I would make that point stronger in the conclusion and possibly discuss the consequences of this. As I commented in the beginning, I enjoy your attention to making field work accessible and inclusive and I think a low hanging fruit would be to discuss how a reduced novelty space might benefit student learning, and in addition how it could support accessibility and support an inclusive learning environment. Those reflections would strengthen the argument and expand the usefulness of the VR. And I recommend placing more emphasis on this in the conclusion as well.
The reference list uses many different styles, this should be easy to clean up.

Line 498: Abeyta, A., Fernandes, A. M., Mahon, R. C., & Swanson, T. (n.d.). is not cited in the paper.

Line 560: Mattheis, A., Murphy, M., & Marin-Spiotta, E. (2019) is not cited in the paper.

Line 565: Mogk, D.W. and Goodwin, C., 2012. is not cited in the paper.

Line 574: Use correct spelling of name: Núñez.

Line 576: Núñez, A.-M., Rivera, J., & Hallmark, T. (2020). is not cited in the paper.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2248-RC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2248', Clare Bond, 21 Jul 2025
Review - Digital Field Representations as a Holistic Approach to Experiential Learning in High Arctic Geoscience Field Education
Rafael K. Horota, Christian H. Eide, Kim Senger, Marius O. Jonassen, Marie A. V. Kloet
I enjoyed reading this paper, it provides a substantial contribution to the field and embodies approaches that are recognised and valid. The figures and presentation are clear, although figure captions could be better/more consistent. Suggestions are made with regard to framing the paper around the two main research questions. The application of Experiential Learning Theory would be interesting, but after introducing it in section 1.1, it is not referred to again apart from in one sentence in the discussion. My suggestion is to remove section 1.1 and introduce ELT briefly in the main introduction. The use of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is much clearer, in how it underpins the survey questions and how it informs the research questions. But clarity in the relationship between the two research questions, two key objectives, TAM, the four themes under which the results are presented and the different surveys is needed and preferably simplified.

Minor typographical errors are highlighted, suggestions made by RC1 are not repeated.

Abstract
The abstract is well written and clear
Introduction

Lines 35-36 - not sure of the style guide for EGU journals, but it is normal to have oldest to youngest in a list of citations, showing the evolution of ideas… so (Horota et al., 2022, Pugsley et al., 2024, Bond and Cawood., 2020) becomes (Bond and Cawood., 2020, Horota et al., 2022, Pugsley et al., 2024). Amend throughout.
Line 39 – you use the word ‘monitoring’ but is it more than this? - people ‘amend’ behaviour.
Line 86 – I think there are some words missing in the sentence ‘and how they perceive the use tools’, perhaps ‘and how they perceive and use tools’?
Line 96 – Here you introduce your two main questions, which are great, but I think it would be useful to better define what you mean by ‘novelty space’ in the introduction. E.g., referencing who coined the term and which of the references cited in the introduction, specifically speak to ‘novelty space’. I referred to it in this COVID-19 paper on Learning Outcomes https://gc.copernicus.org/articles/5/307/2022/ - there are references in here that might be useful, particularly the early work of Boyle completed in a pre-digital field work context, but highly relevant. Otherwise, the reader is left to interpret what you mean by ‘novelty space’; which if they are a scholar in this area is OK, but I think this paper could have a much broader readership, of those interested in pedagogy and practitioners who are looking to use VFEs in their teaching. One way of doing this, would be to have your broad introduction in the first paragraph or two, but then to say what elements you are going to focus on, giving your research questions much higher in the introduction, so the reader is really focused on what you are doing and then in turn introduce the literature on this, and then finish on Svalbox etc.
I feel like there is a cognitive gap between the end of the general introduction and then 1.1 – I think you need to at least introduce ELT in the wrapping up paragraph of section 1and then say that more detail on this and Svalbox follows.
1.1 Virtual Field Experiences in the context of Experiential Learning Theory
I really like the ELT concept and your figure. I felt you could draw a lot more out in the text on how this is undertaken in geoscience. BUT on reading the whole paper ELT is not referred to again, apart from one sentence in the discussion “Moreover, the ability to revisit virtual sites post-fieldwork was highlighted to reinforce learning and reflect on observations. This aligns with experiential learning theory, which emphasizes reflection as a key stage of the learning cycle (Kolb, 1984).” I make suggestions at the end of the review about how to restructure.
Figure 1 caption – “Parts of the figure was AI generated’ – ‘was’ should be ‘were’ as plural (parts)
There seems to be no section 2?
3. Data and Methods
3.1 Research Design
Lines 166-170 In this section you talk about two key objectives, but these are different from your earlier (section 1 research questions). It would be really useful if you could add in a short explanation to link these objectives back to your research questions.
Lines 171 – the TAM is well described here and how it relates to the survey (although unfortunately I don’t have access to the appendices). See comments lower down on a suggested survey flow diagram to link everything together.
Line 177 – stray comma.
In this whole section it would be good to keep linking the survey to your two research questions. How do the four themes and the survey questions help you answer your research questions?
3.2 Study participants and data collection instruments
It would be good to say how the questionnaires were distributed – online survey?
Table 1 is OK, but it doesn’t give a picture of which courses the respondents were from – see also comment below on the 54 participants who completed that survey and how this relates to the 66 referenced elsewhere. In many ways the data in the Table is a bit superfluous to the message of the paper unless it is referred to more explicitly.
4. Results
Again, it would be good in the intro paragraph to this section (starting at line 210) to say how the 4 major themes under which the results are presented relate to your research questions.
Figure 4 – I found the text, particularly in the central figure, hard to read (too small).
4.2 Perceived educational impact
Line 238 – can you explain in the text why there are only 54 participants who answered this questionnaire and why/how this differs from “the 66 students who completed the survey” – line 216-217. Or perhaps in the appendices you could have a flow chart that show how responses varied, across the survey elements? Or add this into Table 1, columns for each Survey and number of responses. Or move Table 1 into the appendices (if you are not going to refer to it (but see comments below) and have a flow chart of surveys, purpose, respondents etc. I don’t seem to have access to the appendices so I can’t see what is there, but it sounds like these are just copies of the survey questions.
With regard to Table 1 it would be interesting to comment on if any changes were identified between the perceptions of those taking different modules and in different cohort levels – Bachelor vs Masters/PhD.
Figure 5 – Clarify that these are mean responses in the figure caption.
Line 170 – Here you say the likert scale is from 1-7, but in figure 6 caption you say it is from 1-5 and your graphs imply this. Check and make sure you are using the correct scale, and you describe it correctly in the paper. Did you use different scales for different surveys? If so, you should say why and make very clear what scales were used for what survey. In the caption there are also new participant/respondent data 41 and 52. It would be good to have a figure/table that shows the different surveys and respondent numbers.
Figure 6 – I note that you only show responses to selected phrases – this is Ok, but the reader should have access to the data for the full set of responses so that they can make their own analyses of responses e.g. to check on bias in statement selection.
Line 230 – is the length of time spent reflective of class time vs student project? – see also comment below.
Lines 281-287 How do these phrases relate to the data in Table 1. E.g. all modules had DTL and FP, pre-field work… In your analyses, did students who had STP reflect differently from those who didn’t – beyond time using the VFE?
4.2.1 Pre-field experiences and perceptions
Figure 7 caption – also suggests a 1-5 likert scale
The results and interpretation/analysis are combined in the current structure, which works Ok, but doesn’t, for example, allow you to show how the ELT relates to your findings. At the moment ELT is not mentioned again after it is introduced in section 1.1, apart from in one sentence in the discussion.
4.2.4 Enhancing spatial awareness and geographical orientation
Line 338 – 339 “indicating that the platform supported geographic orientation during fieldwork. This demonstrates that VFEs effectively helped bridge the gap between map-based learning and physical navigation”
Beware of over interpreting perceptions – you have not shown that there is an improvement in physical navigation. Check through all similar phrases e.g. lines 342-343 “These responses reinforce the importance of integrating layered geospatial data into VFEs to strengthen students’ spatial understanding”
5. Conclusions
This could be made into two complete paragraphs, currently it is half bullet/half paragraph. E.g. line 458 – shouldn’t really start a new paragraph with ‘This shift..’ – it is not clear what shift is being referred to.
Lines 403-404 “In other words, it created a clean foundation for evaluating the pedagogical potential of VFEs in field-based geoscience education.” I think you should acknowledge that different students will have different skill levels in digital environments and expectations of speed, user interface etc.
Line 404 – it would be good to add a link statement to introduce the two research questions that follow.
Data availability
I couldn’t get the link to the questionnaires to work, so could not access the Appendices.
I would encourage data openness and have the full anonymised dataset available, with any redactions or aggregations to ensure that anonymity. At the moment mean data is only presented so the range of responses is not available for analysis and in some cases only selected statements are chosen and the results given in the paper.
Figure Captions
Ensure that key data is in the figure captions, e.g. mean, no. of respondents, and is given in the same order/format for each figure.

Possible paper restructure suggestion.
Section 1 Introduction - Add a short section on ELT into the main introduction. Give your key research questions earlier and then explicitly introduce the literature that relates to them.
Section 2 Svalbox - Create the missing section 2 and introduce Svalbox here.
Section 3 Data and Methods – link the design to the research questions, create a table or flow diagram that shows how the two research questions, two key objectives, 4 themes, TAM and surveys inter-relate, including – the number of overall participants – the number of responses to each survey, the purpose of each survey, pre- post field etc. Personally, I would simplify these descriptions so it clearer to the reader. Option to move Table 1 into the appendices or refer to the information provide in the Table more explicitly in the results – e.g. add in column on no. of respondents from each course and analyse for differences in response based on course or cohort level.
Section 4 Results and Interpretation – change name as you not only present your results, but you also interpret them.
Section 5. Discussion
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2248-RC2

Rafael Kenji Horota, Christian Haug Eide, Kim Senger, Marius Opsanger Jonassen, and Marie Annette Vander Kloet

Viewed

Total article views: 452 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
360	75	17	452	24	42

HTML: 360
PDF: 75
XML: 17
Total: 452
BibTeX: 24
EndNote: 42

Views and downloads (calculated since 30 May 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2025	29	6	2	37
Jun 2025	75	33	7	115
Jul 2025	62	25	7	94
Aug 2025	102	8	0	110
Sep 2025	92	3	1	96

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 30 May 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2025	29	6	2	37
Jun 2025	75	33	7	115
Jul 2025	62	25	7	94
Aug 2025	102	8	0	110
Sep 2025	92	3	1	96

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 452 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 452 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 11 Sep 2025

Short summary

We explored how virtual tools can help students prepare for and reflect on outdoor learning in the Arctic. Using surveys from university courses in Svalbard, we found that digital field visits helped students feel more confident, better understand the landscape, and learn more effectively. These tools do not replace real fieldwork but make it more accessible and inclusive. Our research shows how technology can support hands-on learning in remote environments.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0