pp 1–13 | Cite as

InterGEO: a Digital Platform for University Education on Geomorphological Heritage

  • Emmanuel Reynard
  • Paola Coratza
  • Nathalie Cayla
  • Mélanie Clivaz
  • Laura Comănescu
  • Lucie Darbellay
  • Christian Giusti
  • Florina Grecu
  • Fabien Hobléa
  • Paulo Pereira
Original Article


The project InterGEO was carried out with the objective to disseminate knowledge on geomorphological heritage by developing a digital learning platform. It aims at improving students’ autonomy by the reduction of face-to-face teaching and increasing autonomous learning as well as promoting international interactions between students interested in geomorphological heritage. A completely free-access virtual course on geomorphosites was developed with the Learning Management System Moodle. The course is divided into 24 thematic chapters, each of them containing a short description, a list of references and selected publications, as well as other educational material (videos, virtual fieldtrips, etc.). In particular, several videos allow presenting in a dynamic way concepts and examples. The paper presents the tool and its use in academic programmes in six European universities, where it was tested, in various contexts (Bachelors’ and Masters’ programmes; students in geography or geology; general courses in geomorphology and specific courses on geoheritage and geoconservation), before discussing the advantages and challenges the tool is facing. The InterGEO platform is an easy-to-use and friendly educational tool, which allows developing blended learning activities; it is flexible and adaptable in various learning contexts.


Geomorphological heritage Geomorphosites Education Interactivity Moodle 



Pedagogical support was provided by Johann Lüthi, Pedagogic Engineer of the FGSE at the University of Lausanne. The videos benefitted of the support of Marianne Milano and Ella Malherbe. The learning tool was tested by students of the six universities and results were shared during a virtual workshop organised in the six universities on 13 June 2016. Each person that participated to the project is warmly acknowledged, as well as two anonymous reviewers, whose comments highly improved the quality of the paper.

Funding Information

The coordination tasks (appointment of an assistant) and two workshops in Lausanne were financed by the University of Lausanne (Teaching Innovation Fund and Investment Fund of the Faculty of Geosciences and Environment, FGSE). The videos were designed and created with support of the universities of Lausanne (TIF) and Savoie Mont Blanc (IDEFI Promising and ReflexPro; LabEx ITEM).


  1. Berthiaume D (2011) Using a Teaching Innovation Fund to foster quality teaching at university level. In IMHE “What Works” Conference, Managing Quality Teaching in Higher Education, Mexicali, Mexico, 5–6 December 2011, (accessed 15.03.2018)
  2. Bollati I, Fossati M, Zanoletti E, Zucali M, Magagna A, Pelfini M (2016) A methodological proposal for the assessment of cliffs equipped for climbing as a component of geoheritage and tools for earth science education: the case of the Verbano-Cusio-Ossola (Western Italian Alps). J Virtual Explor 49, paper 1.
  3. Bollati I, Pellegrini M, Reynard E, Pelfini M (2017a) Water driven processes and landforms evolution rates in mountain geomorphosites: examples from Swiss Alps. Catena 158:321–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollati I, Crosa Lenz B, Zanoletti E, Pelfini M (2017b) Geomorphological mapping for the valorization of the alpine environment. A methodological proposal tested in the Loana Valley (Sesia Val Grande Geopark, Western Italian Alps). J Mt Sci 14(6):1023–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boud D, Cohen R, Sampson J (1999) Peer learning and assessment. Assess Eval High Educ 24(4):413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boud D, Cohen R, Sampson J (2001) Peer learning in higher education. Learning from and with each other. Kogan Page, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Brilha J, Pereira D, Pereira P (2012) Geoconservation education, research and outreach: the experience of the University of Minho (Portugal). In Proceddings of the 7th International Symposium ProGEO on the Conservation of the Geological Heritage, Bari, Geologia dell’Ambiente, Suppl. 3/2012, pp 191–192Google Scholar
  8. Brilha J, Pereira DI, Pereira P (2016) Promoting education and training: an online course on geoparks. In 7th International Conference on UNESCO Global Geoparks, Abstract Book, English Riviera UNESCO Global Geopark, Torquay, UK, p 147Google Scholar
  9. Cayla N, Hoblea F, Gasquet D (2010) Guide des bonnes pratiques de médiation des géosciences sur le terrain. Géol Fr 1:47–56 (in French)Google Scholar
  10. Chen PD, Lambert AD, Guidry KR (2010) Engaging online learners: the impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Comput Educ 54:1222–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coratza P, De Waele J (2012) Geomorphosites and natural hazards: teaching the importance of geomorphology in society. Geoheritage 4:195–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Czerkawski BC, Lyman EW III (2016) An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. Tech Trends 60:532–539. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlstrom E, Brooks DC, Grajek S, Reeves J (2015) ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2015. ECAR, Louisville. (accessed 15.03.2018)
  14. Dillon J, Rickinson M, Teamey K, Morris M, Choi MY, Sanders D, Benefield P (2006) The value of outdoor learning: evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. Sch Sci Rev 87(320):107–111Google Scholar
  15. Dougiamas M, Taylor PC (2003) Moodle: Using learning communities to create an open source course management system. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA) 2003, Chesapeake, VA, USA. (accessed 15.03.2018)
  16. Elkins JT, Elkins NML (2007) Teaching geology in the field: significant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses. J Geosci Educ 55:126–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (2014) New modes of learning and teaching in higher education. Publication Office of the European Commission, Luxembourg. Google Scholar
  18. Ferrero E, Magagna A (2015) Natural hazards and geological heritage in earth science education projects. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 419(1):149–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fontana G, Pieracci K, Fuchs C, Bissig G, Reynard E (2008) Thematic bibliography on geomorphosites. IAG and University of Lausanne. (accessed 15.03.2018)
  20. Graham CR (2006) Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future directions. In: Bonk CJ, Graham CR (eds) Handbook of blended learning. Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer Publishing, San Francisco, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  21. Gray M (2004) Geodiversity. Valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  22. Grecu F, Iosif D (2014) The geosites from Danube Defile in Romania. The vulnerability to touristic activities. GeoJournal Tour Geosites 7(2):169–175Google Scholar
  23. Grecu F, Iosif D (2016) Fluvial geomorphosites—interdisciplinary and applied approach. Anal Univ Bucur Geogr 65:5–18Google Scholar
  24. Hénard F, Roseveare D (2012) Fostering quality teaching in higher education: policies and practices. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Ilieș DC, Baias S, Buhaș R, Ilieș A, Herman G, Gaceu O, Dumbravă R, Măduța F (2017) Environmental education in protected areas. Case study from Bihor County, Romania. GeoJournal Tour Geosites 19(1):126–132Google Scholar
  26. Kelley D, Salazar R (2017) Geosites in the Galápagos Islands used for geology education programs. Geoheritage 9:351–358. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khan BH (1997) Web-based instruction. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  28. Martín-Blas T, Serrano-Fernández A (2009) The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a teaching tool in physics. Comput Educ 52:35–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martini G (ed) (1994) Actes du premier symposium international sur la protection du patrimoine géologique, Digne-les-Bains, 11–16 juin 1991. Société Géologique de France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Miśkiewicz K (2016) Promoting geoheritage in geoparks as an element of educational tourism. In: Szponar A, Toczek-Werner S (eds) Geotourism. Organization of the tourism and education in the geoparks in the Middle-Europe Mountains. University of Business in Wrocław, Wrocław, pp 37–48Google Scholar
  31. North L, van Beynen P (2016) All in the training: techniques for enhancing karst landscape education through show cave interpretation. Appl Environ Educ Commun 15(4):279–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Stanley M, Knill J (eds) (1994) Geological and landscape conservation. The Geological Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Osguthorpe RT, Graham CR (2003) Blended learning systems: definitions and directions. Qu Rev Dist Educ 4(3):227–234Google Scholar
  34. Owston RD (1997) The world wide web: a technology to enhance teaching and learning. Res News Comments 26:29–33. Google Scholar
  35. Page KN (2018) Fossils, heritage and conservation: managing demands on a precious resource. In Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage. Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 107–128Google Scholar
  36. Peraya D, Charlier B, Deschryver N (2014) Une première approche de l’hybridation. Etudier les dispositifs hybrides de formation. Pourquoi? Comment? Educ Form e-301:15–34Google Scholar
  37. Pica A, Coratza P, Del Monte M, Reynard E (2017) Urban geomorphological heritage. Special issue of Quaestiones Geographicae 36(3)Google Scholar
  38. Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) (2018) Geoheritage. Assessment, protection, and management. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  39. Reynard E, Coratza P (2013a) Scientific research on geomorphosites. A review of the activities of the IAG working group on geomorphosites over the last twelve years. Geogr Fis Din Quat 36:159–168Google Scholar
  40. Reynard E, Coratza P (2013b) Geomorphosites. Research, protection and education. A Working Group of the International Association of Geomorphosites. Final Report 2009–2013. (accessed 15.03.2018)
  41. Reynard E, Coratza P (2016) The importance of mountain geomorphosites for environmental education. Examples from the Italian Dolomites and the Swiss Alps. Acta Geogr Slov 56(2):246–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) (2009) Geomorphosites. Pfeil, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  43. Serrano E, González Trueba JJ (2011) Environmental education and landscape lesiure. Geotourist map and geomorphosites in the Picos de Europa National Park. GeoJournal Tour Geosites 8(2):295–308Google Scholar
  44. Sharples C (2002) Concepts and principles of geoconservation. Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service website, (accessed 15.03.2018)
  45. Singh J (2015) The ultimate Moodle Guide—resource for new Moodle users. (accessed 15.03.2018)
  46. Tisseron S (2012) Culture numérique : une triple révolution, culturelle, cognitive et psychique. (accessed 15.03.2018)
  47. UNESCO (2016) UNESCO Global Geoparks. Celebrating earth heritage, sustaining local communities. UNESCO, Paris, (accessed 15.03.2018)

Copyright information

© The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanuel Reynard
    • 1
  • Paola Coratza
    • 2
  • Nathalie Cayla
    • 3
  • Mélanie Clivaz
    • 1
  • Laura Comănescu
    • 4
  • Lucie Darbellay
    • 1
  • Christian Giusti
    • 5
  • Florina Grecu
    • 4
  • Fabien Hobléa
    • 3
  • Paulo Pereira
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute of Geography and SustainabilityUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Chemical and Earth SciencesUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaModenaItaly
  3. 3.Laboratory EdytemCNRS – University Savoie Mont BlancChambéryFrance
  4. 4.Department of Geomorphology-Pedology-Geomatics, Faculty of GeographyUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania
  5. 5.Department of Geography and PlanningSorbonne-LettresParisFrance
  6. 6.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations