the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 30 Jun 2026
GC Insights: Integrating Art and Geoscience through STEAM: Public Perceptions and Learning at a Cultural Festival
Abstract. GeoArte, an art-integrated geoscience initiative developed within the STEAM framework, was presented at the International Festival of Living Arts (FIAVL, Loja, Ecuador, 2025) and evaluated through a post-experience survey of 30 non-specialist visitors using a convergent parallel mixed-methods design. Physical geological specimens were the single most cited attraction (86.7 %), yet a comparable majority (83.3 %) rated artistic mediation as strongly facilitating their understanding of geological concepts, with high agreement also recorded for heritage learning and art–geology recognition. Given the exploratory design and absence of pre-test measures, these results are interpreted as preliminary evidence that authentic specimens and artistic representation operate as complementary rather than competing channels of engagement, supporting the applicability of STEAM methodologies in community-based geoscience outreach and geoconservation.
- Preprint
(672 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(40127 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2788', Karina Judd, 23 Jul 2026
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Renato Efren Gonzalez Zuñiga, 24 Aug 2026
We sincerely thank Referee Karina Judd for her thoughtful and constructive comments. We apologize for the delayed response; we were away on vacation and we wanted to ensure a careful and considered reply rather than a hasty one.
We fully acknowledge the value of the suggestions raised. However, we must note that this manuscript was recently reclassified from a full research article to the GC Insights format, which imposes a strict limit of 1,500 words and a single display item. This reclassification required a substantial restructuring of the original work, and the resulting format leaves very limited room for the expansions requested, particularly the deeper engagement with the GeoArt literature, the extended thematic analysis in Results, and the additional reflective content in Discussion, without exceeding the format constraints.
The one revision we are confident we can implement is the update of the Braun and Clarke citation to their 2023 guidance on good practice in thematic analysis (https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597), which better reflects the descriptive and preliminary nature of our qualitative approach.
We recognize that the remaining points raised by the referee represent genuine opportunities for deeper engagement, and we commit to addressing them fully in a future extended version of this work, where the format allows for the nuance they deserve.
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Renato Efren Gonzalez Zuñiga, 24 Aug 2026
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2788', Alejandra Bermeo, 07 Sep 2026
This manuscript presents an interesting and valuable approach to integrating art and geology in the context of Loja, Ecuador. Using the Festival Internacional de Artes Vivas de Loja (FIAVL) as an informal setting for geological communication offers a valuable opportunity to engage non-specialist audiences with geoscience and to highlight the importance of geological heritage in the region.
The research questions are relevant, and the results provide an interesting perspective on how visitors perceive the role of art in understanding geological concepts. For future work, it could be interesting to complement these self-reported perceptions with pre- and post-experience assessments, including objective questions on geological knowledge. This would help distinguish between participants’ perception of learning and actual changes in their conceptual understanding. A larger number of participants could also allow the authors to examine differences between age groups and to apply more detailed statistical analyses.
I also think a more detailed description of how the STEAM approach was implemented could be provided. In particular, it would be helpful to clarify how the artistic components were specifically related to geological concepts and the local geological heritage, and how these connections were incorporated into the activities and the participatory mural.
Overall, this is a very interesting and promising work that highlights the potential of combining art and geology as complementary approaches to promoting geoscience and promote public engagement with geological heritage.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2788-CC2 -
CC3: 'Reply on CC2', Renato Efren Gonzalez Zuñiga, 16 Sep 2026
Dear Alejandra, thank you so much for your kind and thoughtful review of our work. We truly appreciate the time and care you dedicated to reading the manuscript.We sincerely thank you for this generous and constructive assessment. We are pleased that the approach and its relevance to geoscience communication in Latin American contexts were well received.We fully agree with the suggestions raised. The points regarding pre- and post-experience assessments, a larger sample size, and more detailed statistical analyses reflect precisely the limitations we acknowledge in the Discussion section, and they align with the directions we envision for future work building on this preliminary study.
Regarding the description of the STEAM implementation and the connections between the artistic components and local geological heritage, we note that the original submission included a substantially more detailed account of these elements. However, following the editor's recommendation to reclassify the manuscript to the GC Insights format, which imposes a strict 1,500 word limit and a single display item, much of this contextual detail had to be removed to comply with the format constraints.
The current version necessarily prioritizes the core insight over methodological depth.We are grateful for your engagement and take these observations as valuable guidance for a future extended study where the format allows for the richness these suggestions deserve.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2788-CC3
-
CC3: 'Reply on CC2', Renato Efren Gonzalez Zuñiga, 16 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2788', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Sep 2026
This GC Insights paper is a good fit for the journal: a practice-based STEAM case from an under-represented Latin American setting, with an explicit ethics statement and a useful contrast between specimens as the main attractor and artistic mediation as the dimension most often credited with facilitating understanding. I agree with RC1 that the work is promising and that the "juxtaposition" needs a more nuanced reading.
My main request is more concrete description of the visitor experience. The Methods name specimens, artworks and the participatory mural Ecos del mar en la montaña, but they do not say what visitors actually did. Did they handle the rocks and fossils? Were they guided? How was the mural produced — who painted, for how long, on what prompt, and how was geology inscribed in the work? Two or three precise sentences would help readers interpret why specimens outranked "making art," and would also support the reflection suggested by RC1: visitors may be measuring "geology learning" against a familiar object-based model rather than against the artistic activity.
What I found most useful is that the Discussion does not take the role of art for granted. In much of the art–geoscience literature the artwork is assumed to carry conceptual content. These data, read cautiously, point to a more modest and perhaps more realistic function: specimens do the attracting and the evidencing; art may act as a facilitator of attention and meaning rather than as the primary source of geological knowledge. That distinction is worth keeping. It is already treated as speculative in the Discussion; the abstract should use the same caution and not present complementarity as established evidence.
Two short reporting points: the questionnaire in the Supplement also covers heritage valuation, satisfaction and recommendation — these should appear in the Results, even briefly; and the 70% of participants with limited or no prior geological knowledge belongs in the Results, not only in the Discussion. On the open comments I share RC1's request for more of that material in the Results. Given how short the answers appear to be, the authors might either show a few coded extracts or simply describe a descriptive grouping, rather than leaning on thematic analysis as a label.
Finally, the questionnaire in the Supplement is in Spanish while the manuscript is in English. An English translation of the item wording would help international readers verify the instrument.
I recommend publication after these clarifications.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2788-RC2 -
CC4: 'Reply on RC2', Renato Efren Gonzalez Zuñiga, 07 Oct 2026
We thank the referee for the thorough and constructive review.
Regarding the visitor experience description in Methods, we fully understand the interpretive value of this detail. The GC Insights format has a strict 1,500-word limit that the current version already meets, so adding those sentences would force cuts elsewhere. The fuller account is available in the original preprint.
The abstract has been revised accordingly. The final sentence now reads "preliminary indications, not confirmatory evidence, that authentic specimens and artistic representation may act as complementary rather than competing channels of engagement."
The 70 % prior-knowledge figure has been moved to Results, where it now opens the section. The corresponding parenthetical in the Discussion has been removed.
The heritage valuation, satisfaction, and recommendation items, along with the open-ended response groupings, could not be expanded in the main text given the word limit. Participant quotations are already included in the third paragraph of Results, and the label "thematic analysis" was replaced in a prior revision with "descriptive content analysis adapted from thematic categorization principles." An English translation of the full questionnaire is submitted as an updated Supplement alongside this response.
-
CC4: 'Reply on RC2', Renato Efren Gonzalez Zuñiga, 07 Oct 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 159 | 84 | 27 | 270 | 43 | 15 | 18 |
- HTML: 159
- PDF: 84
- XML: 27
- Total: 270
- Supplement: 43
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Thank you for this manuscript, it is fantastic to see a practice-based insight at the STEAM-geological interface including audience reflections, especially noting the difference between motivation and perceived learning. The authors described a geology-themed exhibit based on local geological features at an arts festival.
Overall this is a promising piece of work, though I felt it undersold the existing body of literature on art as a vehicle for science learning in both formal and informal settings, including GeoArt methods.
It was noted that a thematic analysis was performed, it would be great to see some more of this in the results. Please also consider whether referring to Braun & Clarke's updated methods would be more appropriate, see https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597 for guidance.
One thing that I thought was missing was some more nuanced reflection from the authors on the "juxtaposition" noted on what visitors considered the most impactful part of the display. I wonder whether some existing expectations on how geology learning is "supposed" to look might be coming into play here.
Some final specific notes:
Lines 32-35: Please elaborate on why this gap is “especially consequential in Latin American contexts” as opposed to other places
Line 45: What are the STEAM principles followed? Unclear from the citations given