the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 30 Sep 2026
Immersive 3D Virtual Reality for Field Geological Practice: A New Paradigm in Geoscience Education
Abstract. Geology education, due to its deep reliance on the composition and evolution of the Earth’s material, is in dire need of practical knowledge to strengthen theoretical understanding. However, traditional field geology teaching has long been limited by space-time constraints, irreversibility of phenomena and multi-scale characteristics of complex geological processes, and the existing digital teaching tools are mostly limited to two-dimensional displays or static three-dimensional models, which lacks immersive presentations of dynamic evolution and interactive operations of geological phenomena, making it difficult for students to establish systematic geological thinking. For this reason, this study integrates the realistic 3D modelling and virtual reality technology, builds a realistic 3D field geological practice virtual simulation platform, and constructs a platform teaching system covering the whole process of “Preparation-Teaching-Examination-Evaluation”. By comparing the students’ practical scores before and after the use of the platform and collecting feedback, it was found that the students’ practical scores increased significantly after the application of the platform, and the proportion of high scores (90–100) increased from 13.8 % to 27.4 %, and more than 90 % of the students recognized the functions of the platform and expressed their willingness to use it continuously. The study confirms that the virtual-reality integration teaching mode effectively improves the cognitive depth of geological phenomena and the efficiency of practical skills transformation through realistic 3D roaming, stratigraphic dynamic evolution simulation and standardized assessment system. This study not only provides a feasible solution to solve the bottleneck of traditional geology teaching, but also lays a practical foundation for promoting the transformation of geology education to the direction of intelligence.
- Preprint
(2205 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(106 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 03 Dec 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4843', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Oct 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4843', Alessandro Tibaldi, 06 Nov 2026
reply
I read with interest the paper “Immersive 3D Virtual Reality for Field Geological Practice: A New Paradigm in Geoscience Education”, although the title is somewhat grand-sounding, raising higher expectations in the reader than what the work actually delivers. The general structure of the paper, in particular, needs significant improvement. I have included various corrections and suggestions in the attached PDF; here, I provide only a list of the main points.
The Introduction chapter contains various details regarding the results that need not be presented here; it would be more appropriate, instead, to highlight the scientific questions addressed in this study.
In some cases, the article cites numerous earlier publications to support rather obvious points—such as the fact that bad weather makes fieldwork difficult—while, conversely, it fails to mention foundational literature that has already addressed the very topic at the heart of this work. In the attached PDF, I have included several suggestions regarding key prior studies from the international literature, whose contributions should be acknowledged.
The first part of Section 4.4, which belongs to Chapter 4 on the description of the Platform functionality, reads more like a discussion, and the second part like a methodology. Some expressions, which are more characteristic of a discussion, also appear in other sections of Chapter 4. It would be appropriate to distinguish better between methods, data results, and discussion.
The present work entirely lacks a section dedicated to discussion. Although some elements that could be considered part of a discussion appear sporadically in chapters 4 and 5, a formal chapter devoted to discussion is necessary. This need is made even more pressing by the fact that the authors must also take into account previous analyses concerning student feedback on the same central theme addressed in this work. I will cite just a few examples.:
- Wright et al. (2022). Student evaluations of using virtual reality to investigate natural hazard field sites. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2022.2045573
- Bonali et al. (2021). How academics and the public experienced immersive virtual reality for geo-education. Geosciences, 12(1), 9.
- Loriga et al. (2026). The development of VR fieldtrips for geoscience curricula. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 1-22.
- Bursztyn et al. (2025). Using immersive virtual reality to measure strike and dip and teach geological mapping concepts. Earth Science, Systems and Society, 5(1), esss2024-008.
- Genge et al. (2024). Learning and teaching geological field skills in a virtual world: Insights from an undergraduate virtual fieldtrip in Kinlochleven, Scotland. Earth Science, Systems and Society, 4(1), 10128.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 285 | 111 | 35 | 431 | 56 | 45 | 31 |
- HTML: 285
- PDF: 111
- XML: 35
- Total: 431
- Supplement: 56
- BibTeX: 45
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Recommendation: Major revisions
General comments
The manuscript addresses a relevant topic in geoscience education by presenting a platform that combines realistic 3D geological models with virtual learning activities. Its organization around preparation, teaching, exercises, and evaluation offers a potentially useful framework for supporting field-based instruction.
However, several aspects require clarification before the platform’s contribution and educational effectiveness can be adequately assessed. These include the geological content and learning objectives, the activities completed by students, the construction and optimization of the 3D models, and the interpretation of the performance and questionnaire results. The manuscript would also benefit from a more focused literature review and an explicit discussion of its limitations.
The differences in grades between the 2022 and 2023 cohorts are potentially informative, but should be interpreted cautiously. A comparison between different cohorts does not, by itself, establish that the platform caused the observed improvement. The manuscript should clarify the comparability of the teaching and assessment conditions and distinguish descriptive differences from demonstrated effects.
Specific comments
Section 2 provides useful background on virtual reality and the development of digital field teaching. However, the review would benefit from a more focused discussion of previous applications to geological fieldwork, structural geology, and virtual field trips. Relevant examples to consider include Klippel et al. (2020), “The value of being there: toward a science of immersive virtual field trips,” and Bursztyn et al. (2022), “Virtual strike and dip – advancing inclusive and accessible field geology.” Please explain how the proposed platform builds on, or differs from, existing approaches.
At approximately line 128, the manuscript identifies multiscale modeling and the integration of photogrammetry and laser scanning as directions for future research. Please also acknowledge existing developments in this area and specify which challenges remain unresolved.
One potentially relevant methodological example is “Assessing multisensor integration for geological modeling: UAV photogrammetry, LiDAR, and hyperspectral data in a visualization workflow” (de Castro and Ducart, 2026), which discusses multiscale integration and interactive geological visualization. I disclose that I am a coauthor of this publication. This is an optional suggestion, relevant only if the authors develop the discussion of geometric fidelity, semantic coherence, and multisource integration.
The geological content is frequently described as “complex,” but this does not sufficiently explain what students are expected to learn. Please identify the principal geological settings, structures, lithologies, minerals, and specimens represented in the platform, together with the associated learning objectives.
For example, the reference to the Tan-Lu Fault Zone and the Xuzhou-Suzhou Arc Belt does not make clear which features students examine or what interpretations they are expected to produce. Representative examples would help readers understand the platform’s educational scope and the scales at which geological observations are possible.
The description of Vue.js and PostgreSQL provides useful information about the web architecture. However, Section 3.1 lacks sufficient detail about the acquisition, processing, and preparation of the geological models.
Please specify which datasets were acquired directly and which were obtained from existing sources. For each acquisition method actually used, identify the relevant equipment, software, processing steps, and spatial resolution or accuracy.
Please also explain whether and how the models were optimized for browser rendering. Relevant information could include mesh simplification, texture optimization, and level-of-detail management. The authors should explain how these procedures affect the visibility of geological features, including which structural or lithological details can be resolved and which cannot.
The manuscript describes numerous platform functions, but the sequence of activities completed by students remains unclear. Please provide a representative learning workflow, ideally supported by a figure.
For example, describe what students do during preparation, which observations or measurements they undertake, what outputs they produce, and how these outputs are assessed. Connecting a specific geological example to a learning objective, student task, and assessment criterion would make the educational design much clearer.
The increase in the proportion of students scoring 90–100, from 13.8% to 27.4%, is a relevant descriptive result. However, its interpretation requires clarification of whether the two cohorts were assessed using comparable tasks, grading criteria, and conditions.
The discussion should also address the limitations of self-reported platform-use duration. Table 2 presents ordered duration categories rather than directly measured continuous hours. Please clarify how these categories were coded for the correlation analysis and justify the analytical approach.
Future studies could supplement self-reports with platform activity records. Such records would also require a clear definition of active engagement, since an open session does not necessarily indicate continuous participation.
The approximately 20% neutral responses concerning the guided learning function (Q7) and evaluation system (Q10) warrant further discussion. However, neutrality alone does not establish its underlying cause.
Please explain whether additional feedback supports interpretations concerning usability, content suitability, or assessment transparency. Where such evidence is unavailable, present these explanations as possibilities and identify what further investigation would be needed.
The manuscript needs an explicit discussion of its limitations, preferably in a dedicated subsection. This should address the comparison between different cohorts, the measurement of platform engagement, the interpretation of satisfaction responses, technical constraints, and the extent to which the results can be generalized to other geological settings and teaching contexts.
The conclusions should be revised accordingly, distinguishing demonstrated outcomes from proposed benefits and future development opportunities.
Technical corrections