Quantifying Virtual Field Trip Efficiency

Abstract The efficiency of virtual field trips (VFTs) compared to their physical counterparts, is often regarded as one of their key benefits. Virtual field trips are typically more time, cost and environmentally efficient and logistically easier to plan and execute. This is largely due to the lack of travel, however, the nature of these efficiencies, which is essential for deciding whether a trip should be virtual, physical or blended, have not previously been quantified. Here we present a quantitative evaluation of several measures of efficiency, using data from a like-for-like comparison between 10 day long virtual and physical field trips to Utah, USA, from the University of Aberdeen, UK. For this case study, our results demonstrate that virtual field trips are more efficient across all the categories of time, cost, environmental impact, and logistics. In addition to saved air travel days at the start and end of the physical trip, a further 33.3% of the time on the physical field trip was spent travelling (walking and driving). This time saving allowed an additional 16 localities to be visited on the virtual field trip. The virtual field trip localities also ran in an order that best suited the geological narrative rather than their geographic location which the physical field trip was restricted by. Flights and driven kilometres for the physical trip produced c. 4 t of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 ) per student. The virtual trip produce <1% of the CO 2 and was comparable to a typical teaching week, making it significantly more environmentally efficient. The cost of the virtual trip was negligible compared to that of the physical trip (saving up to £ 3000 GBP per student). These findings were compared to the fulfilment of learning outcomes, quantified primarily through questionnaires, the student responses suggest that the PFT and VFT perceptions of learning outcomes were generally comparable. Efficiency is not the only measure of a successful field trip, with other parameters such as social cohesion and embodiment within the outdoor environment that must also be considered when planning a field trip. Therefore, the authors do not advocate or support an abandonment of physical field trips. Rather, this study aims to provide a first attempt to quantify efficiency to inform decision making when planning field training.