Dear authors,

Thank you for contributing this strong and well documented study, motivated to reach equitable bicultural outcomes in geoscience education. The results show a change in student reflections on communication skills, bicultural skills, and flexible learning skills after implementing the curriculum changes. The use of virtual tours in Iceland and New Zealand, using cultural advisors to couch the material in both Mātauranga Māori and conventional science knowledge systems is shown to help students gain new insight into volcanic processes and hazards. These insights are shown to be skills the students bring into their professional work.

In order to clarify some of the insights and context, it would be helpful if the authors could make some minor changes. In particular, it would be helpful to describe more clearly how to 'flip' a massive open online course. Defining what flipping means by referring to key literature can help orient readers who may be more familiar with the term referring to flipping physical teaching settings, i.e. having lectures online and activities in-person. To this reader, it remained unclear what flipping a mooc entails. In this manuscript, flipping seems related to reversing the order of teaching (homework activity before delivering lecture content), with reference to Kapur et al. (2022) but without clearly stating whether they use the term in this way. The idea that a flipped classroom can be about a reversal in the order of material delivery seems novel and if so should perhaps be lifted earlier in the paper (including in the abstract). If it is not novel, I would recommend citing some literature. Until this is addressed, there is a seeming contradiction in this statement: "The learning experience in a MOOC invariably ends up being uniform and less personalised, whereas in a flipped classroom setting learning strives to be as individualised and personal as it is practical." How does the flipped mooc overcome this invariable result? Overall, the manner in which a mooc can be flipped in general and in this course merits some more discussion, and can be distinguished more clearly from other flipped formats, and even lifted as a key insight from this paper.

The methods section would benefit from more detail on the format of the (online?) workshops, and the percentage of students participating in the research.  Relating to the comment above, this can help clarify what a 50 minute flipped workshop might entail in a mooc.

A question that might merit consideration is also how the online format shapes the transmission of Mātauranga Māori, particularly in light of cited previous research highlighting the importance of shared relations and values. There is mention of using prior recorded content, but were there also efforts to build shared relations and values with students through the course curriculum? 

To make the abstract more concise, I would also suggest shortening the abstract and removing some repeated content. The first paragraph of the conclusion seems redundant.

Please attend to a syntax error on page 5 line150-151 "Another way of putting it that "content" (reading or video) is delivered outside..."

Overall, it is encouraging to see New Zealand geoscience leading the way to more inclusive and comprehensive teaching of Earth processes.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

Best wishes

Siri Veland

The authors have grounded their research in a robust literature context, presenting ideas and methods in a clear and well-structured manner. I particularly appreciate the novelty of formalizing the importance of contextual engagement and meaningful interaction with students in an undergraduate class. During the lockdowns, it seemed that science teachers prioritized retaining technical skills, often at the expense of communication and interpersonal skills, which are highly valued in the employment sector. Addressing bicultural and unequal challenges while developing communication skills in what appears to be a confident environment is highly commendable.

However, encouraging the authors to address an international audience facing similar challenges, I see the need to be explicit about the background required from Indigenous students to successfully complete such a course. This is crucial because, while the inclusiveness of Māori students is fortunate compared to other Indigenous communities worldwide, many Māori students possess the literacy, technological, and scientific competencies that enable them to enter tertiary education programs in science and learn using these methods, whereas most segregated Indigenous communities cannot. I understand the importance of including Maori knowledge in science courses. What is not clear to me is the message that comes from this experience to inspire other societies because examples of how was this done is not explicit in the manuscript. Addressing this is important because this journal targets an international audience.

Additionally, I would appreciate a more detailed explanation of a module and class structure. This would allow readers to follow your inspiration and understand how MOOC and flipped classroom modalities are integrated. Providing detailed examples would be beneficial, as it would help other educators grasp the value of instructor-student interaction in the active components, which is crucial for consolidating knowledge. Furthermore, examples of how relationships, values, and sharing are cultivated within the course while training students in technical skills would be valuable. Similarly, what are some successful science communication projects that have been implemented, evidencing the internalization of bicultural skills?

I understand the study was conducted in 2021-2022. However, I find it very instructive to review, with the benefit of hindsight, the educational tools that were accelerated during the pandemic in a more critical way. Could you update your discussion by elaborating a bit more on what we lost with the online courses forced by the pandemic and what we gained? Should we retain all these methods in the current situation, or how should we recover some successful in-person sessions to improve communication and interpersonal skills? For instance, how do weak prior knowledge and skills (as referred to in lines 210-212) influence the attitude towards learning? Should we focus on making fieldwork more inclusive instead of replacing in-person fieldwork with virtual fieldwork? I understand that these methods are complementary, but it would be great if you could address how merging all these experiences matters. It would also be important to address current and future challenges of these methods, especially where generative AI might be misunderstood as a trustworthy source.

Minor suggestions include avoiding redundancy in the abstract and double-checking the format of citations, which is very heterogeneous in the current version.