MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408428447 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-13672

Cultivating Fieldwork Skills Through a “Choose Your Own Adventure” Interactive Virtual Field Trip

2025· preprint· en· W4408428447 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alissa Kotowski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeography Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdventureField (mathematics)PsychologyComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fieldwork is an essential part of geoscience training. It teaches spatial reasoning, teamwork, and organizational skills while requiring integration of diverse observations and iterative hypothesis testing. Successful field campaigns demand critical thinking, problem-solving, and adaptability—skills that many students find challenging, particularly when faced with open-ended tasks that lack “correct answers.” Moreover, physical fieldwork can also be exclusionary, particularly for students with health or mental impairments, lower socioeconomic status, or inflexible family obligations that limit their ability to enter the field. To address these barriers, we need inclusive and innovative methods to teach transferable field skills to all students, regardless of their ability to participate in physical fieldwork. Interactive Virtual Field Trips (iVFTs) offer a promising solution by enabling students to explore spatially integrated, data-rich environments and “visit” inaccessible sites at their own pace with fewer external stressors.We present an iVFT to the Mont Albert ophiolite complex (Québec, Canada), designed to train and assess students in field preparation and critical thinking in an accessible, inclusive setting. We built the iVFT as a “choose your own adventure", challenge-based virtual environment that provides a structured yet flexible framework for cultivating field skills such as strategic planning, data integration, and decision-making in dynamic scenarios. The environment integrates desktop virtual reality with an option of VR/AR compatible glasses for full immersion. To prepare for the 'field' activity, we instruct students to plan an initial field campaign justified by their chosen research problem and terrane accessibility inferred from a topographic map, and "pack a backpack" based on logistical constraints (including weight estimates). Students then enter the virtual environment and test the validity and flexibility of their field plans by making real-time decisions about site selection (i.e., what outcrops to study in detail, and why) and sampling strategies (i.e., what samples to 'collect,' and how much they weigh). The “choose your own adventure” framework allows for embedding unexpected challenges related to weather, health and safety, and active decisions of how and where to spend time. Students keep “field notebooks” to document observations, evolving hypotheses, and modifications to original field plans. During the exercise, we encourage metacognition by guiding student articulation of reasons behind decision making, responses to unexpected challenges, and strengths and weaknesses of original field plans. After the exercise, we captured this cognitive growth through post-activity written reflections. Preliminary assessments using pre- and post-surveys and student products, including narrative reflections, indicate that this approach enhances students’ confidence in tackling complex, open-ended problems while fostering skills critical to real-world fieldwork. Leveraging iVFTs as fieldwork preparation tools has the potential to impact geoscience education by providing students with a safe, accessible, and effective platform to develop critical thinking, problem-solving, and field planning skills. Such skills are transferable both to in-person field experiences, and more broadly, to complex problem-solving.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeography Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207