GC Insights: Designing for full-phase inquiry in virtual fieldwork &ndash; upper secondary school students&rsquo; exploration of extinction events

Malm, Rie Hjørnegaard; Hansen, Kristen Rune Skalborg; Evans, Robert; Madsen, Lene Møller; Milán, Jesper; Thibaut, Nicolas Rudolph; Kennedy, Ben

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899

Preprints

09 Sep 2025

| 09 Sep 2025

GC Insights: Designing for full-phase inquiry in virtual fieldwork – upper secondary school students’ exploration of extinction events

Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, Kristen Rune Skalborg Hansen, Robert Evans, Lene Møller Madsen, Jesper Milán, Nicolas Rudolph Thibaut, and Ben Kennedy

Abstract. When designing virtual field courses it is challenging to create a truly explorative course element. In relation to theories of student learning, this has been problematised, and more inquiry and student-centred virtual fieldwork has been proposed to allow for authentic exploration and engagement. Here, we outline the development of a full-phase inquiry virtual fieldwork activity using 360 videos with additional classroom tools that allows students to collect data, work out hypotheses independently, and combine with known science relationships to draw geologically viable conclusions.

Received: 10 Aug 2025 – Discussion started: 09 Sep 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

Preprint (PDF, 591 KB)

Supplement (1740 KB)

Download & links

Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, Kristen Rune Skalborg Hansen, Robert Evans, Lene Møller Madsen, Jesper Milán, Nicolas Rudolph Thibaut, and Ben Kennedy

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-3899', Sebastián Granados, 22 Sep 2025
After reviewing the authors document I have several major-minor issues to address for publication.

Major aspects:
Title and context of extinction events

The title mentions extinction events, nevertheless throughout the paper it is not clear which specific event, neither any additional information. I find this crucial since, students tend to find certain fascination in tops such as “how did the dinosaurs disappeared? “, for example. It is very different the mechanisms of extinction in geological time. I am very interested in know the mechanism of the process. Vulcanism? Asteroid? Etc.…

Regarding the methods, which type of software and hardware was used? Was it open source or commercial? Is it available for developing countries? Further clarification in the use of the technological resources must be clarified.

Results

There is basically no text on the results, only and image that is not legible. At this point entering in analyzing the discussion is quite difficult because we can’t see the data in the text. I see some stratigraphical columns (maybe) and some maps, but they are not legible at all to further enter into the discussion of the results. I would say this is the major issue that must be corrected for the paper to understand better what was done and how it can impact educational processes. Therefore, I won’t comment on the discussion and conclusions because there is simply no data to see from the results, we can’t perform a discussion without seeing the outcomes. It is not clear how the experiment was done or how to proceed to debrief the data. I strongly encourage to work on this part.

Minor aspects:
Citation and acronyms must be correct in all the text. Follow the guidelines of the journal.

Decision:
Major revision. I hope these comments can help the authors to improve the text. The text is not ready for publication. The image that explains the results and lack of text does not provide any information for the further discussion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-RC1
- AC5:
  'Reply on RC1', Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, 27 Nov 2025
  
  Thank you for reading this piece. In this work we have been very keen on keeping to the intentions and ideals of inquiry-based learning. One of the cornerstones of this is to have students work out their own hypothesis through their work with the data material. While being guided through the material to form their own conclusions. The tough part for instructors is often that we what to “give the clue away” or “fascinate with facts”, but in inquiry-based learning we wait as long as we can to “tell the story”. We therefore also do not want to give away the answers in the title and thus chosen to use ”extinction events” in the title. We, however, agree that by reading this piece, as someone interested in developing inquiry-based learning, one should not be left without an answer to the question. We will make sure that the story is outlined in the piece.
  We have only used a 360 camera and the open software Thinklink, we will make sure that is made clear.
  The results section is placed in the supplementary material in this short GC Insights paper. We aim to introduce inquiry-based learning as a tool for VR fieldwork, as a way of organizing teaching and we hope that the piece, in spite of being short, can inspire educators to experiment with inquiry-based learning in geoscience.
  Thank you for the time you have spent reading and commenting on this. We appreciate your contribution. /Rie
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-AC5
  - EC8: 'Reply on AC5', David Crookall, 27 Nov 2025
    
    Rie: I agree completely with you that "in inquiry-based learning we wait as long as we can". We even give clues to students, so that they can find out for themselves (and have that satisfaction), without being told at all. And teachers have the satisfaction that students have been able to 'get to the end' (more or less) on their own.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-EC8
    
    AC7: 'Reply on EC8', Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, 27 Nov 2025
    
    Agree, I think this is one of the most satisfying moments as a teacher, it is such a joy to help students learn themselves. It is difficult to hold back but rewarding.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-AC7
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-3899', Sebastián Granados, 26 Sep 2025

Dear authors,
Previously, I had submitted some observations regarding the results of the manuscript. I reviewed the paper as a research article. Prior, I have been informed that this type of communication does not follow this kind of structure. Therefore, I would like to clarify some aspects.
In first place, I maintain the observation of improving the figure regarding the results. It’s not legible, maybe a larger font and better resolution could help.
Secondly, I do think that in the text should be pointed out which extinction events the authors are referring to. This is important for the debriefing aspect. Usually, in middle school and in general culture, extinction events are related to the Late Cretaceous asteroid event.
Overall, I think the design is relevant for educational purposes and should be published with the recommendations of the reviewers.
Kind regards,

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-RC2
- AC3:
  'Reply on RC2', Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, 03 Oct 2025
  
  Thank you for helping us improve the manuscript. We will for sure have a look at the figure. /Rie
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-AC3
  - EC7: 'Reply on AC3', David Crookall, 27 Nov 2025
    
    Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was removed on 28 November 2025 since the comment was posted by mistake.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-EC7
EC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-3899', David Crookall, 26 Sep 2025

This comment is not a review. It is a collection of editorial notes to help the author improve the ms after reviews are in.
Thank you, Rie, for shortening the ms to fit it into the GC Insights framework.
Title: Generally, simpler titles with the main topic up front attract more attention. I suggest something like this for your title:
Exploring extinction events: A virtual fieldwork experience for secondary schools
Phase. You use the term full-phase many times, but do not seem to explain clearly and succinctly what it is. I think that a good description would help. You also use multi-phase. Is this different?
VR simulation. It is important to situate your VR in a broader context; this will enrich your ms.
As “virtual reality (VR) is a branch of simulation” (Alghanaim, N., Hart, J., & Finn, G. (2025). Scoping Review: The Effectiveness of Interprofessional Virtual Reality Simulation. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development), you should really mention this conceptual context.
(See also, eg, * Cai, Y., & Brown, jUDY (Eds.). (2006). Virtual reality simulation (4th ed., Vol. 37). Sage Publications. * Ruiz-Ortega, D., Ricoy-Cano, A. J., García-Domingo, M., & Fuente-Robles, Y. M. de la. (2024). Learning through simulation: A systematic literature review of the use of virtual reality and augmented reality in social work education. International Social Work. * Tokuno, J., Knobovitch, R. M., Botelho, F., Fried, H. B., Carver, T. E., & Fried, G. M. (2025). Immersive Virtual Reality Simulation for Medical Student Procedural Training: Assessment of Cognitive Load and Usability. Surgical Innovation.)
ELT. Your figure 1 resembles somewhat the cycle in Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) by Dave Kolb. Your whole module is in fact a hands-on (albeit virtual) experience. You need to show how your fieldwork illustrates or fits with ELT. (See refs in chapter on debriefing below).
Debriefing. All professional (incl virtual) simulation and experiential learning activities must include some form of debriefing, and this must be accounted for in any article on the topic. If debriefing is missing, then a short explanation needs to be provided, eg, indicating that the work was exploratory, but that full debriefing will be added later. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374344073_Debriefing_A_Practical_Guide (which contains a long bibliography on debriefing) and http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34249.45924
Language / typos
the teacher engage the students to virtually explore – s missing ((that was in your previous ms, so it may not be in your shorter ms))
What do you mean by “user-driven”? Who is the user in this case?
Instead of “Movements towards”, it would be better to say “The movement towards”
What do you mean by “grounding pedagogical intentions”?
“to fit their student population” ==> to suit their student population
“processes are connected, theoretical knowledge is made relevant, and through this, enhance students’ understanding of” ==> your phrasing needs to be clarified
“on inquiry does not produce definitive results due to the complex character of the phenomena, much” ==> I would not call pedagogical inquiry “phenomena” – besides inquiry is singular and phenomena is plural à maybe just use the word method, which it is
Before you send the next version (assuming we get there), please ask a critical colleague to read through the ms and highlight these gremlins. One or two in a long text will pass muster, but several in a short text will detract from its impact. Scholars do not like to cite, let alone quite from, work that has this kind of problem.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-EC1
- AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, 03 Oct 2025
  
  Thank you David. We will make these adjustments for a new version. /Rie
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-AC1
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-3899', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Sep 2025

Overall, this GC Insights paper presents an interesting perspective on the use of virtual fieldwork and could be a useful resource for educators in environmental disciplines. Yet, I feel that the work requires more attention. Most importantly, I find that this insight paper should be written in a way that highlights the “new” perspective that it brings on virtual fieldwork. In essence, it should explain and show adequately the benefits of the proposed framework and account for the need to shift from frameworks currently used in virtual fieldtrips. Moreover, I feel that the GC Insights at times merely repeats parts of the supplementary material; however, the supplementary material should not be repeated in any way; the supplementary material is the one serving as the guide for performing the framework.
I understand that this type of paper has a strict word count, however, I find it necessary that the authors highlight the new additions to the process, explain the importance and need to adopt them, but also point out potential risks and limitations as well as opportunities. In addition, it is necessary to state whether the proposed framework affects decision-makers in educational institutions and whether (and how) curricula should be improved. Moreover, there should be more explanations on how the framework succeeded in combining virtual fieldwork and inquiry. In other words, there should be more emphasis on the insights through experiencing the proposed model for virtual fieldwork as well as more explanations on how the model achieved this combination.
The authors have added an “Elicit” phase in order to engage students through their prior knowledge. In some cases, however, this may surface inaccurate previous conceptions. In what ways does the proposed model manage such risks?
As the authors discuss the potential inability of field trips to provide authentic student inquiry, it would perhaps be meaningful to consolidate the argument using Tilden’s heritage interpretation principles.
It is quite challenging to infer whether the use of physical microfossils is appropriate in virtual fieldwork; on the one hand, the aim of fieldwork is to mirror authentic scientific practice and if students know they will be given the microfossil, this can reduce the authenticity of the inquiry. On the other hand, if students never find the microfossil in the virtual site, they may be frustrated. For this reason, I think it is important to be more specific about how and when the microfossil is introduced in order to ensure that the presentation of the sample does not defeat the purpose.
The text in the GC insights requires editing by a professional academic service; for example, in line 20, I feel that the phrase “including in the geosciences” seems somewhat incomplete and requires further elaboration. In addition in line 48, it is recommended to avoid “etc”; if such an expression is necessary then the authors could use “and so forth” or something similar. These are examples; the entire text ought to be edited.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-RC3
- EC2: 'Reply on RC3', David Crookall, 29 Sep 2025
  
  Many thanks for your useful review. Best wishes, David Crookall (handling ed)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-EC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, 03 Oct 2025
  
  Thank you for the kind comments. We will have a look at them for improving the manuscript. /Rie
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-AC2
- AC6:
  'Reply on RC3', Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, 27 Nov 2025
  
  Thank you for reading and commenting on this work.
  
  We agree that that there should not be too many overlaps between the GC Insights and the supplementary material. The balance here is to explain the theoretical framework with an example, and we have aimed to actively use the example as a way into the theory. In this process we might have created some unnecessary overlaps, which we will attend to. The same goes for the comment on how “the framework succeeded in combining virtual fieldwork and inquiry”, which we aimed to show instead of telling. At the same time, we agree that one should not have that question after reading the piece, so we will edit the discussion and conclusion to include this important aspect.
  In relation to the Elicit phase and risks, it is exactly the point and very important that those “inaccurate previous conceptions” are expressed at the beginning of an inquiry-based lesson, as this is important information for the teacher to know, and either address or adjust for in the lesson.
  Regarding the comment on microfossils and authenticity, there is a slight misunderstanding of the aim of how we are using VR. We do not work within the frame of “the aim of fieldwork is to mirror authentic scientific practice”, we precisely want to design a lesson that does something that a typical fieldwork cannot. We want to show students the fossils that they usually see in a microscope, and not while being in the field. We designed the VR for students to gain access to scales that they cannot see in the field. Therefore, we do not claim to make an authentic experience but using the technology to show many scales at the same time. The aim here is to give students access to many types of data for them to work on their hypotheses. The aim is to guide students though an inquiry where they make scientifically sound reasoning.
  We will of course edit the manuscript in a final phase before sending of to the “press”.
  
  Thank you for taking the time to read and comment, and helping us improve the piece.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-AC6
  - EC9: 'Reply on AC6', David Crookall, 27 Nov 2025
    
    Good points. It would help the reader if you could make this clear in your ms.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-EC9
EC3:
'Editor Comment on egusphere-2025-3899', David Crookall, 03 Oct 2025

Editor Comment on egusphere-2025-3899
Dear Rie et al
You now have three two very different reviews of, and some editor notes on, your ms. I think that these should be sufficient to revise your ms. Your responses to reviewers appear to indicate that you will take on board their advice. Personally, I think that their advice will help you improve your ms considerably. Assuming that most of the improvements are made, it is likely that I will be able to recommend publication to the Executive Editors, who make the final decision.
Let me summarize the main areas that I see, based on the comments made:
Improve the figure. You can provide as high a resolution as you like (the higher the better), and the publisher will adjust.
Clarity on extinction events.
Mention debriefing. If you have developed debriefing material, then I encourage you to include this, with a facilitator guide, in the materials package in your depository.
It might be worth mentioning the places and circumstances (maybe a small table or bulleted list?) in which you have tested your VR materials so far.
Please shorten the title – this is the first thing that a potential reader will see. A simple hook!
Situate VR as a special form of simulation – the Alghanaim ref that I suggested seems to be good, I think; it is in med ed, and they generally do excellent work. Also add two or three more if you can find them easily.
Situate your VR within the Kolb ELT – not much needed – just a few refs – as everyone knows about ELT.
RC3 makes some excellent points:
I do not have any opinion about the relationship between your article and the supplementary material. My hunch is that you should clearly separate the two documents (article and supplement) so that they can be read more or less independently of each other, even if that means including some of the (maybe reworded) material from the article in the supplement.
I am not sure how strict the word count is. If you need to ask, Copernicus (editorial@copernicus.org) will be able to tell you. I think that it would help the reader if you mention the issues outlined in the second paragraph.
In regard to Tilden’s principles, I wonder whether they might not be built into part of the debriefing in some way, obviously at a level suitable for high school students. Just an idea.
The issue about the appropriacy of physical microfossils is intriguing – and important. It raises the question of the relationship between a simulation and its referent, which is an altogether different ball game. It also raises the question of making sure that students can differentiate between the simulation world and the real world. That too is an important question to be included in a debriefing protocol. In fact, it is a fairly standard question in many debriefing protocols. Personally, I see no reason why students should not experience some form of frustration (it occurs in most real-world fieldwork), as long as it is resolved in some way (eg, cognitive explanation during the simulation and/or emotional release during the debriefing).
Finally, yes, please do find a really good copy editor who can smooth your prose. You can start by using the OWL (online writing lab) at Perdue U, https://owl.purdue.edu/, and then give it to a harsh colleague to smooth phrasing. After this comment goes off to you, then Copernicus may give you an automatic deadline to send back your revised ms. Do not worry if this seems short; you can always ask for an extension, but please ask before the deadline lapses. In any case, do not hesitate to be in touch with me directly if you have any questions. I will not be available from mid October until the end of the month.
Please consult the various pages in the GC website, incl https://www.geoscience-communication.net/submission.html. It should tell you somewhere about how to format your revised ms, to include tracked changes.
Good luck with the revisions.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-EC3
- EC4:
  'PS to Editor Comment on egusphere-2025-3899', David Crookall, 03 Oct 2025
  
  PS. I should add that it would be much appreciated by your reviewers if you were to acknowledge their help. Reviewing takes time, is unpaid and requires expertise. Even if a review was harsh, in your eyes, it may well be that it provided good feedback from which your article benefitted. Acknowledgement makes their work a little less thankless.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-EC4
  - AC4: 'Reply on EC4', Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, 06 Oct 2025
    
    I apologize for misunderstanding your system. I have copied all the comments into a document and now systematically writing a ‘reply to review’, along with editing the text. I did not mean to be disrespectful, on the contrary I wanted to acknowledge the comments and that we are working with them to improve the manuscript. We are grateful for the help to improve the text and figures. /Rie
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-AC4
    
    EC5: 'Reply on AC4', David Crookall, 06 Oct 2025
    
    Thank you, Rie. You have not been disrespectful - nothing to worry about. Focus on quality in your ms No need to write much for things with which you agree, but it is always good to provide strong (but tight) support for things with which you disagree. PS: When I suggested, in EC4, that you acknowledge reviewers, I meant in the article itself -- apologies for not having been clear about that. Happy revising.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-EC5
- EC6: 'Reply on EC3', David Crookall, 11 Oct 2025
  
  Rie. I just came across this ref
  Raschick, M., Maypole, D. E., & Day, P. A. (1998). Improving Field Education Through Kolb Learning Theory. Journal of Social Work Education, 34(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.1998.10778903.
  I have no idea if it will be useful.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-EC6

Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, Kristen Rune Skalborg Hansen, Robert Evans, Lene Møller Madsen, Jesper Milán, Nicolas Rudolph Thibaut, and Ben Kennedy

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3899-supplement

Rie Hjørnegaard Malm, Kristen Rune Skalborg Hansen, Robert Evans, Lene Møller Madsen, Jesper Milán, Nicolas Rudolph Thibaut, and Ben Kennedy

Viewed

Total article views: 814 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
655	108	51	814	45	25	24

HTML: 655
PDF: 108
XML: 51
Total: 814
Supplement: 45
BibTeX: 25
EndNote: 24

Views and downloads (calculated since 09 Sep 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2025	458	22	12	492
Oct 2025	118	45	21	184
Nov 2025	66	31	11	108
Dec 2025	13	10	7	30

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 09 Sep 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2025	458	22	12	492
Oct 2025	118	45	21	184
Nov 2025	66	31	11	108
Dec 2025	13	10	7	30

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 833 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 833 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 06 Dec 2025

Short summary

This GC Insights presents a virtual fieldwork module integrating 360 videos and inquiry-based learning to support geoscience education at the upper secondary level. The design enables students to engage in authentic scientific practices, including data collection, interpretation, and hypothesis formation. The paper discusses how virtual environments can facilitate an exploratory learning and foster deeper conceptual understanding, when designed carefully as a full-phase inquiry lesson.


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