Dear NC Barth and co-authors,

The present paper is interesting and well-written.  It presents an elegant Virtual Field Trip (VFT), the authors’ reasoning behind this VFT, some analysis on the technical solution for this VFT, some thinking on VFTs in general, and the instructor’s impression of the learning outcomes of the students exposed to this VFT. The VFT itself looks polished and is easy both to understand and to use, and will likely be interesting to many. I have only a few comments, and I think this paper only needs very minor revisions to make it accessible to as many as possible. Many parts are somewhat descriptive and describe basic functionality in the technological solution, or are somewhat repetitive. This could be streamlined a bit. 

My specific comments to the paper can be found below.

Sincerely,

Christian Haug Eide

University of Bergen

October 5^th, 2021

Main points 1: Present link to virtual field trip earlier in paper

Right now, the link to the VFT is not presented before Section 2, Line 55. I believe many readers would like to see the VFT itself as early as possible, and I think it would be useful to place this link in the first paragraph of the introduction.

2: US-centric jargon

Many terms relating for example to how far students are into their study programme are US-specific and not immediately obvious to readers from other locations. Examples include upper division, summer field, course, module, gradebook, major.

3: Unnecessary sections?

I am not sure section 3.3 adds very much? (This might just be because I am a philistine). 3.4 also seems to me to be much longer than necessary?

4: Hillshade

It is not clear how the hillshade functionality was delivered in google earth? On lines 312-3 it is stated that Google Earth can remove vegetation, but this is not standard functionality as far as I know. This should be described better.

Minor points:

L17, L299 and 301: The term scaffolding is used but it seems vague to me what this actually means. Perhaps the authors could clarify this?

L30: “Most instructors” is a bit vague.

L32: “began organizing and meeting virtually in March 2020” – what was this forum called?

L44-45: Especially here, it should be clarified what a module is and what a course is.

L83: “What makes placemarks truly standout” – unnecessarily loaded, change wording.

L100-106: This is perhaps a bit too long and detailed?

L122: Exceptional quality. It would be better to provide some objective measures of quality such as resolution, or “largest feature that can be recognized”

L133, 134: Loaded terms good, excellent. Text should be rewritten here to be more formal and more descriptive.

L145: “steeped in the history of rock climbing”. Vague, should be presented in a more informative manner.  

L151: “An instructor-only file is provided with verified credentials.” It is unclear to me what this means.

L178-9: “are held to a professional standard.” It is unclear to me what this means.

L181-2: " these maps are among the best products students have produced in remote summer field alternative courses”. Compared to what? Judged on what metrics? What is so good about them and how are these better than the ones they made before/in other modules?

L257: Another point that should be pointed out, I suppose, is that there might be no guarantee for longevity for these VFT products. I suppose google could change their solutions and all this becomes obsolete? Or are there guarantees against that?

L296: What exactly is meant by “excessive cognitive demands” here? I can think of very many experiences in higher education that places much higher cognitive demands on students than such a VFT. Also, what is meant by domain specific expertise here (i.e. which domain are you thinking about – geology, general computer skills, google earth expertise)?  

Review of: From Virtual Field Trip to Geologically-Reasoned Decisions in Yosemite Valley.

Nicolas C. Barth, Greg M. Stock, and Kinnari Atit

Dear Simon Buckley,

This valuable contribution provides a concise outline of what appears to be a well-constructed virtual field trip (VFT) within Google Earth that can be used for entry to high level geoscientists. It offers some reasoning of the VFT, an overview of the components, and a discussion on the technicalities of using Google Earth as a platform. In addition to comparisons with some other forms of VFTs, and insights into how VFTs can provide an effective learning platform. My comments are listed below, and I recommend minor revisions.

Sincerely,



Jessica Helen Pugsley

University of Aberdeen

17/10/21

Main Points:

1: VFT Link

A direct link to “four-part Geology of Yosemite Valley module” would benefit from being added to the introduction if it is publicly available as stated. In addition to the general “Teaching with Online Field Experiences” link in section 2.



2: Geology vs Geomorphology

In places it is unclear if the students are interpreting geological features or geomorphological features. If students are describing geomorphological features but relating them to the geology of the area, this should be clarified potentially with examples, or where appropriate, the term geomorphology used.

3: Introduction

The introduction is clear and concise however it lacks references and context, perhaps sections of the discussion (3.2) outlining VFT Formats, would be better placed here.

Minor points:

L14-15: “Upper-division” unclear within this context external to US to my knowledge, consider another.

L17: ‘Scaffolds’ as a term in this context not particularly clear, consider another word or phrase.

L31: Consider adding some references to this, there are several examples of such alternative courses now published. More generally there is not a single reference within the introduction, while much of what is mentioned is either general knowledge or specific description of the Yosemite Valley VFT, there are sentences which could be substantiated through references.

L43-45: ‘instructors thought’ vague, do you have any data to support?

L43-44: “course” and “module” both used, consider clarifying.

L46: “potential” used twice, consider another word or phrase.

L55: this link is to a general Teaching with Online Field Experiences page and not the VFT mentioned, is there a direct link to the VFT if publicly available?

L57: Does the module work on a smart tablet within google chrome and Google Earth Pro? If so, add ‘touch-screen’ or ‘remove trackpad or mouse’.

L72: what is described are commonly referred to as ‘live edits’ or a ‘real-time’ project/document.

L84: ‘look direction’ vague, consider ‘view orientation’.

L84: Clarify what is meant by ‘imagery’?

L103: unclear what “probably ideal in most situations” means          

L122: The “exceptional quality” of Google Earths photogrammetry mentioned is through the google earth ‘3D Buildings’ layer, which covers numerous cities globally in addition to some national parks (mainly within the US). The raw data is collected through low-flying arial photogrammetry, not satellite imagery as this contribution describes. This data is currently restricted to cities and national parks, consider mentioning. If you turn off this layer you will see the quality of the satellite imagery below area in figure 3c.

L122: The use of “exceptional, excellent, and good” noted here and elsewhere in paper, try to use more objective language.

L137: “It is a simple matter” unnecessary, consider “to continue”.

L172-173: Where is the lidar data sourced from that the students use to make hillshades? If data external reference source. Also clarify what a hillshades map is.

L176: Consider removing “fairly”.

L178: “Summer field” vague, not a term commonly used in Europe.

L181: How did you measure the quality; do you have the data?

L182-184: Is there data of how many students recognise these features, rather than stating ‘many’ or “nearly 100%”.

L185: “Geomorphologically-reasoned” rather than Geologically-reasoned seems more appropriate” in title of section and text. Unless students are relating their geomorphic observations back to the underlying bedrock geology, if so, explain in text and potentially provide an example.

L187: Is hazard ‘line’ a common term? Consider polygon, outline, or area, unclear what “hazard line” describes as a noun.

L199: Would ‘Gynomorphically-sound’ work better in this context?

L219: ‘Look direction’ informal, consider “view orientation”.

L226: May also be worth mentioning the geology specific virtual outcrop repository V3Geo.

L271: Link does not work on 17/20/21

L289-292: Unclear the relevance of these two sentences, either elaborate and link to the VFT presented or remove.

L296: What does “excessive cognitive demands” refer to and how is excessive defined?

L299: Consider “framework” rather than “scaffolding”.

L308: Example using tree unclear, consider another.

L301: Again “scaffold”, while I understand the use doesn’t seem right in this context.

L324-328: percentages given but no information on the methodology, numbers of students involved and percentage of class. Please elaborate.

L335-336: as with upper-division, ‘major’ also not commonly used external to US to my knowledge.

L345: figure 1. text not legible within B, unclear if this is needed.

L359: figure 3: scales on screenshots would benefit readers unfamiliar with the area.

L380: Use of “hazard lines”, clearer in context of figure than in text as they are further explained here.

L445-447: No mention of Putnam et al, 2015 in text.