Assessing motivations, benefits, and barriers of implementing virtual field experiences in geoscience-related disciplines

AbstractOutdoor field experiences have long been part of the traditional curriculum in geoscience-related disciplines and are considered a key aspect of professional development in these areas. When the COVID-19 pandemic forced the cancelation of many field excursions around the world, geoscience departments were forced to make abrupt changes to the ways students would be introduced to field study. Virtual field experiences, which were often utilized prior to COVID-19 in a variety of ways, including preparation for in-person fieldwork, increasing student interest, and increasing student accessibility, were developed and employed as alternative options to in-person field experiences. This embedded mixed-methods study used open, hierarchical coding schemes with referential category structure to code open-ended survey responses from 89 department heads and 27 instructors in geoscience-related departments across the U.S. The study was aimed at better understanding acceptance and familiarity with VFEs, motivations for use, and the benefits and barriers encountered during development and implementation. Binary quantitative data was collected to identify institution type, familiarity with, and motivation for the use of VFEs. Opportunities for student diversity, inclusion, and access for students from historically underrepresented groups (BIPOC, disabled students, women, and LGBTQ + students) were the most immediate benefits recognized. The most often cited barriers were time, skills, and resources needed to create VFEs and put them to use. As VFEs have been utilized in a variety of ways before and during COVID-19, it has become increasingly necessary to discuss the roles they will play going forward in academic and professional geoscience-related spaces.Keywords: VirtualfieldexperiencesgeosciencesCOVID-19 AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank all of those who took the time to respond and offer input for each of these surveys. Thanks to Haylie Mikulak for serving as co-coder on the qualitative data, and to the Auburn Geocognition Lab, Dr. Laura Bilenker, and Dr. David Brink-Roby for their review and input on both surveys.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Southeastern section of the Geological Society of America under Grant 13454-22.