Thank you for the constructive and positive comments. We agree with many and have noted a few main points as a result for which we need to improve the clarity of our manuscript.

Introduction section

We agree that the introduction is long and can be made more concise. We argue that virtual field experiences have the potential to help with people who self-select out of geology for a variety of reasons ranging from accessibility to being uncomfortable in the field all day or for multiple days. We do see the point that the motivation for our work presented in this manuscript was not actually the range of these accessibility reasons, however, if this work motivated by the Covid-19 pandemic can provide a mechanism to improve inclusion in the geosciences in the future, we count that as an important secondary and long-term motivation for our work.

While we think it is important to discuss these topics and have uncomfortable conversations, it is true that as it was not a direct motivation for the work, some of this material can be removed from the introduction and instead be discussed as outlook and applications later in the manuscript. Ultimately, we are interested in establishing virtual field trips as a way to address some of the many issues arising from the fieldwork tradition that currently plague the geosciences.

We will remove the personal communications reference and we verified that citing papers “under review” does comply with the journal policy.

Regarding software access and license, the PSU website at the time of submitting the manuscript only provided the demo of the tool in question. We have since updated the site where the demo and full playable dVR experiences are all publicly accessible. In discussion of this point, we are also working on making available the software download for the immersive VR version of the tool that can be utilized with Quest headsets. Allowing for access to virtual field trips through immersive technologies is our long-term goal (see also below).

Discussion section

We can (and will) add the suggested additional example references for 3D geo models, thank you for providing them. This point also brought up an important discussion amongst the authors: the tool actually uses high-resolution 3D models that we downloaded from Sketchfab, and nowhere in our manuscript did we explain this. It is important to note that these high-resolution models were actually a major source of lag within the tool for users without high-powered computers. It was our troubleshooting of a digital twin for high-resolution models of real rocks and outcrops that lead us to explore texture simulators like Adobe Substance. We found that reducing the polygon count within the Sketchfab models resulted in virtual outcrops that, while not causing lag, were no longer identifiable by their appearance. Regardless, these points must all be made clearer in our manuscript so that the reader knows the full process.

Finally, regarding right hand rule, we created the exercises within the SaD tool as a set of direct (but virtual) replicas of a lab activity we would normally conduct in person that has the students use the RHR to map a set of staged “outcrops” in a classroom. We wanted to maintain a parallel between the real world exercise (and field trips that typically follow it) and the virtual exercise. While the geologists on the team disagree with the statement that RHR conventions add a level of complexity (we think that RHR allows for a user to intuitively think about strike and dip as a plane instead of an arbitrary line), to specifically address the reviewer question, the floating hand can easily be toggled off within SaD, thereby allowing the user to simply use the compass alone to complete their measurements.

Thank you for your constructive and helpful comments, you echoed several points made by Reviewer 1, which indicated for us the major points of clarification that we need to address within the manuscript to improve it.

Introduction section

We agree with both reviewers regarding the length of the introduction section. We can still reference the key issues with fieldwork and the motivation for virtual tools like SaD with more concise phrasing and some reorganization of some material to the discussion.

L82-83

We agree with the sentiment and appreciate the suggestions for improving the phrasing here.

L92-107

The reviewer is correct, we started the discussion about developing the SaD tool before Covid and it was originally conceptualized as an immersive virtual reality tool. However, by the time software was developed sufficiently for pilot testing, we were already deep in Covid-19 lockdowns and remote learning. We quickly pivoted, recognizing that it was not feasible to test iVR with headsets under early pandemic conditions, and pushed onward with a web-based dVR version. We do have the SaD tool ready as iVR and we intend to make it available and also assess it in the near future. We will address the wording in the manuscript to make this clearer. However, we do truly believe that 3D information is best assessed and learned within a 3D interactive medium and there are more studies emerging which indicate the benefits.  Immersive technologies make such experiences possible and as they are entering main-stream, it is important to conceptualize their role in geoscience education and to plan for future empirical studies to document their advantages.

L208-210

We are not entirely in agreement that we understand what the reviewer means here, however, we are in agreement that our phrasing in the manuscript must not be sufficiently clear and needs some refining. What we mean here is that the SaD tool provides an opportunity for students to practice and gain experience with taking strike and dip measurements (remotely), generating learning through the virtual, but intentionally interactive, experience rather than only the passive information intake from reading and watching video. Interactivity and practice are well documented pedagogies that foster learning.

General comment about iVR

This is a fair comment (that agrees with the first reviewer as well), given that this study only examines the web/desktop-based VR experience. We should make clearer, and perhaps reduce some of the emphasis on, the iVR goals of the project – as mentioned in our response to L92-107 above.

L506-508 and following comment regarding Procedure

These comments indicate to us that we need to improve some clarity in the way we documented the procedure of our study. It is important to note here a couple of items. First, the activity that was developed to use the SaD tool as a lab exercise is a digital replica of an existing lab that was conducted in person (with staged outcrops) prior to Covid-19. This is indeed the whole lesson, including SaD software. However, what we examined was specifically the replacement of the in-person staged outcrops with the digital environment within SaD. Second, in our assessment we did not examine student learning (this was addressed to some degree in our preliminary study Bursztyn et al., 2021 – full citation in references), but rather the students’ experiences using the SaD tool for the mapping exercise. Our survey included ranking and open-ended questions that targeted the students’ senses of perceived control, usage, representation, and learning efficacy. Our study did not include pre-post surveys nor a control, instead we considered the tool itself and compared student responses with their familiarity with gaming experience and other navigational software. The goal of the SaD tool was to replicate the pedagogy we had previously developed with staged outcrops (from classroom theory to hands-on practice) and evaluate the potential of SaD as a virtual replica of the original experience. We will certainly make the effort to clarify this in the manuscript, but would also love to be able to compare using a controlled experimental design in a future study. We especially would love to be able to compare student learning between the real world and the iVR experience!