Educating Aspiring Teachers with AI by Strengthening Sustainable Pedagogical Competence in Changing Educational Landscapes

Comments 1: The only aspect that I believe requires some revision is a slightly more extensive reference to the relevant literature. Including not many, but the most recent related studies would greatly enhance the completeness of the article, making comparison and integration in the Discussion section possible. If this is achieved, the article is of high quality and well worth publishing.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Dear reviewer, We appreciate your suggestion about the literature and we are making six new additions to the literature section. We also inform you that we have made changes and updates in many areas of the study with the suggestions of other reviewers and the editor. It is valuable for us in terms of the quality of our article that you review these parts and send us your valuable comments. Best regards.

5. Additional clarifications

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading and constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of our manuscript. We would also like to inform you that the proofreading certificate has been submitted to the editor. We truly appreciate your time, effort, and collaboration in helping us enhance the manuscript.

Best regards,

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: There is ethics board approval (EB 1168), but privacy/data processing needs to be further clarified due to the use of commercial AI tools (Gamma/Suno/Midjourney/ChatGPT), "recorded" activities and Google Forms in the classroom with observation.

Response 1: [Type your response here and mark your revisions in red] Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have explain the problems. Please check page 11, paragraph 2, line 390.

Comments 2: Data collection was done digitally (Google Forms), with implementation in a classroom where the researcher can observe, which raises the issue of voluntariness, possible pressure and anonymity.

Response 2: I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have explain the problems. Please check page 10, paragraph 4, line 358.

Comments 3: It is stated that the activities were tested and "recorded" through assignments and work in the classroom, but it is not clear where the data is stored, who has access, and how anonymization is ensured.

Response 3: I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have explain the problems. Please check page 10, paragraph 4, line 358.

Comments 4: Third-party platforms (e.g., Gamma, Suno, Midjourney, ChatGPT) were used, and certificates were awarded to "successful" participants, which may imply additional risks (sharing data with external services).

Response 4: I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have explain the problems. Please check page 10, paragraph 4, line 358.

Comments 5: It is necessary to describe more clearly whether the data/artifacts are shared on third-party platforms (Gamma/Suno/Midjourney/ChatGPT), what it means that the activities are "recorded", where the data is stored and how anonymization is ensured, especially since the collection was done via Google Forms in the classroom with observation...

Response 5: I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have explain the problems. Please check page 10, paragraph 4, line 358.

5. Additional clarifications

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for raising your concern regarding the confidentiality of the data. We would like to clarify that all participants were provided with an informed consent form prior to the study, which clearly explained the purpose of the study, the data collection process, the use of Google Forms, classroom observations, and the fact that participants could withdraw from the study at any time. Participation was entirely voluntary.

All collected data were anonymized to ensure the protection of participants’ identities. Furthermore, no data were shared with third-party platforms (Gamma, Suno, Midjourney, ChatGPT); all activities and assignments were recorded solely under the supervision of the researcher and securely stored. This process was carefully implemented to guarantee both data confidentiality and adherence to ethical standards.

Therefore, all measures regarding data security and anonymity have been taken, and participants’ privacy has been fully protected. We hope these clarifications address any concerns regarding ethical and privacy matters.

Comments 1: The paper highlights conceptual weaknesses in key constructs like “sustainable pedagogical competence” and “AI literacy,” which lack clear definitions and a theoretical framework.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have on page 2, paragraph 3, starting from line 78, explanations are provided for both concepts in two separate paragraphs.

Comments 2: The research design suffers from a single-group pretest–posttest methodology, limiting causal inferences and overstating claims about the AI training program's effectiveness.

Response 2: Dear Reviewer,

The aim of the 8-week program was both to raise participants’ awareness of AI literacy through four practical applications and to support the integration of artificial intelligence into educational practices. In addition, the study was designed as a mixed-methods approach, addressing both the identification of needs and the examination of the development process through pretest and posttest measurements.

In this context, the program was described as ambitious and effective due to the observable development of the 33 participating pre-service teachers. The evaluations regarding the program were based on the fact that many participants, who initially had limited knowledge, demonstrated significant improvement, developed instructional materials, and began engaging in the technological integration process through the use of innovative materials.

Comments 3: The small and homogeneous sample size of 33 teacher candidates from Cyprus presents challenges for generalizability.

Response 3:

Dear Reviewer,

The implementation was conducted with 33 students, as this represents the total number of students enrolled in the relevant course. Given that the study employed a mixed-methods design incorporating both qualitative and quantitative components, we do not consider the sample size to be insufficient for the purposes of the study. In addition, all participants received an intensive 8-week training program.

Considering the face-to-face nature of the training, working with a substantially larger group could have reduced the effectiveness of the instructional process and limited the instructor’s ability to provide meaningful guidance. The study was conducted as part of a doctoral dissertation, and therefore all stages of the implementation were carried out by the first author, Aydoğan Erkan. This required individual engagement with each pre-service teacher and close monitoring of all applications and materials. For these reasons, we found it necessary to clarify the adequacy of the sample size.

Respectfully yours.

Comments 4: Measurement issues arise from an overreliance on self-report measures without performance-based tasks, raising doubts about the validity of post-test scores.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have made a explain on page 9,paragraph 1, between 303-308

Comments 5: There are inconsistencies in data analysis, including confusion over statistical methods and inadequate qualitative depth, leading to ambiguous findings.

Response 5: In the study, the needs were first identified through qualitative analysis. Based on this, a pretest–posttest was conducted using a quantitative scale. An 8-week training program was implemented to assess this process. Expert opinions were also consulted during the collection of qualitative data. We believe that the procedures were adequate.

Comments 6: The intervention design is criticized for being tool-centered rather than focused on pedagogical approaches,

Response 6: We accept the referee's criticism of the vehicle-oriented intervention. However, we would like to point out that the intervention was designed within a pedagogical framework in order to improve the technological and pedagogical competencies of pre-service teachers. The main objective of the study is to strengthen the sustainable pedagogical skills of the participants and increase their capacity to integrate AI into lessons in a meaningful way. While acknowledging that the emphasis on tools may limit transferability, the pedagogical principles guiding the design ensure that key learning outcomes are adaptable to other educational contexts. Please check the page 8, paragraph 1, line 297

Comments 7: The manuscript asserts significant contributions, yet the evidence is predominantly perceptual and lacks long-term evaluations.

Response 7: While the reviewer notes that the evidence is predominantly perceptual and lacks long-term evaluations, we would like to emphasize that the primary aim of this study was to explore immediate effects and experiences of pre-service teachers regarding AI integration. The perceptual data collected provide meaningful insights into participants’ understanding, attitudes, and pedagogical intentions, which are central to the objectives of this exploratory study. Long-term evaluations, while valuable, were beyond the scope of the current research and do not diminish the relevance of the findings presented.

Comments 8: Language and style issues, such as repetition and grammatical inaccuracies, detract from the paper's credibility, indicating a need for more disciplined, theory-driven research.

Response 8: Dear reviewer, The manuscript has been thoroughly proofread, and a proofreading certificate has been submitted to the editor.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1: Dear reviewer, The manuscript has been thoroughly proofread, and a proofreading certificate has been submitted to the editor.

5. Additional clarifications

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of our manuscript.
Kind regards.

Comments 1: It is obvious that the authors have fixed a lot of things. However, references should be checked further, and DOI numbers should be added where missing.

Response 1:  Dear Reviewer,

The necessary revisions have been made. Please check the References section.

5. Additional clarifications

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comment. DOI numbers have been added to most of the relevant references. However, for a few of them, DOI numbers could not be identified and therefore were not included.

Kind regards,

Comments 1: First, there are issues with language and style, including grammatical inconsistencies and awkward phrasing, suggesting a professional edit for clarity.

Response 1: Dear Reviewer,

The manuscript has been sent for professional proofediting, and the certificate has also been emailed to the editor. The final version of the manuscript will be resubmitted. Additionally, if it is indicated to us that the editing is still insufficient, we will resend it.

I am also attaching the certificate for your reference.

Comments 2: Second, concerns are raised regarding statistical analysis, particularly the justification for switching between t-tests and Wilcoxon tests, urging clarification of statistical findings.

Response 2: Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the statistical analysis. The choice of tests has now been clarified in the revised manuscript. Specifically, the t-tests were applied when the data met the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance, while the Wilcoxon tests were used for data that did not meet these assumptions. These clarifications have been added to the Methods section, and the corresponding statistical findings in the Results section have been updated accordingly.

We hope this explanation addresses your concern. (Page 13, Paragraph 4, Line 482) ( Page 14, Paragraph 2, Line 499)

Comments 3: Third, the results section is criticized for redundancy, with a recommendation to integrate qualitative descriptions more effectively and focus on interpretation rather than restating data.
Response 3: Dear Reviewer, We appreciate your valuable feedback and have added a more detailed clarification in response to your comment. (Page 18, Paragraph 3, Line 653)

5. Additional clarifications