Between Innovation and Tradition: A Narrative Inquiry of Students’ and Teachers’ Experiences with ChatGPT in Philippine Higher Education

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer 1:

I am deeply grateful for your invaluable feedback and insightful comments on my paper. Your thoughtful suggestions and meticulous attention to detail are deeply appreciated.

I genuinely appreciate the time and expertise you have generously devoted to the improvement of my manuscript.

With every best wish,

Alma S. Espartinez

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

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

Comments 1: This qualitative study explores the integration of ChatGPT in Philippine higher education institutions through narrative inquiry, involving 18 participants (10 students, 8 faculty members). The findings reveal a certain degree of student dependency, a marked urban–rural divide, and concerns among faculty regarding academic integrity and the erosion of critical thinking. The paper offers a significant contribution in highlighting the phenomenon of silent AI acceptance and proposes solutions to the issues raised.

Although the topic is both timely and relevant, the manuscript could be substantially improved by enhancing its structure and further developing certain sections.

Below, I offer several comments that may help strengthen the manuscript.

General Concept Comments:  While the paper makes important contributions, it contains multiple repetitions that could be reorganized to improve its flow. This would not only enhance readability but also help clarify the concepts and findings.

Literature Review:  The review presents a clear overview of the Philippine context, but lacks a more critical theoretical framework reflecting perspectives that interrogate ChatGPT in education, addressing both its benefits and limitations.

It would be valuable to deepen the discussion through a more theoretical lens, such as critical digital literacy (Buckingham, 2020), which explores how technological education is assimilated—especially relevant for discussing the theme of silent acceptance in the discussion section.

As in the previous section, the study’s objectives are again stated (lines 178–182), but they do not match those outlined in the introduction. Also, the paragraph on the study’s contributions (lines 183–189) should be moved to the discussion or conclusion sections.

Response 1:  Thank you for this insightful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have integrated critical digital literacy (Buckingham, 2020) as a theoretical lens to interrogate ChatGPT’s adoption in Philippine higher education. Specifically:

·       Section 2.4 (Benefits, Opportunities, Challenges, and Concerns) now explicitly applies Buckingham’s framework to analyze how "silent acceptance" reflects uncritical adoption of AI, particularly in under-resourced institutions where policy gaps exist.

·       Section 5.1 (Theoretical Contributions) reframes "silent acceptance" as a manifestation of institutional digital literacy gaps, where the absence of critical engagement with AI tools perpetuates inequities (e.g., rural faculty lacking training to evaluate ChatGPT’s pedagogical risks).

·       Section 5.3.2 (Literature Synthesis) contrasts the Philippine case with Global North critiques of AI in education, highlighting how infrastructural disparities exacerbate uncritical adoption.

This addition strengthens the paper’s critical stance, aligning with the special issue’s focus on inequality by exposing how ChatGPT’s integration reproduces hierarchies when divorced from intentional, literacy-focused policies.

Comments 2: The study’s objectives are again stated (lines 178–182), but they do not match those outlined in the introduction. Additionally, the paragraph on the study’s contributions (lines 183–189) should be moved to the discussion or conclusion sections.

Response 2: Thank you for catching these structural issues. We have made the following revisions:

1.     Consolidated Objectives:

o   Removed the duplicate objectives from the Literature Review (previously lines 178–182) to avoid redundancy.

o   Ensured the Introduction’s objectives (Section 1) are the sole, authoritative version, now phrased more precisely to reflect the narrative inquiry approach.

2.     Relocated Contributions:

o   Moved the contributions paragraph to Section 5.7 (Theoretical and Practical Implications) in the Discussion, where it synthesizes key findings (e.g., "ethical displacement," urban-rural divides) and their significance for AI equity research.

These changes improve the manuscript’s flow and eliminate repetition, ensuring objectives and contributions are positioned where they logically belong.

Comment 3: Methodology:  This section should consolidate all content related to research design and analysis, including the description of objectives, hypotheses, and research questions.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 do not add significant value. This information could be condensed into a flowchart, focusing instead on the final characteristics of the sample used in the fieldwork.

The sequence of the methodology section could be improved as follows:

·       Presentation of objectives and research questions

·       Methodological design (narrative inquiry)

·       Instruments and data collection

·       Type of analysis

Sampling and final sample characteristics

Response 3:  The Methodology section has been restructured to follow the recommended sequence:

1.     Research objectives and questions (Section 3.1)

2.     Methodological design (narrative inquiry, Section 3.2)

3.     Instruments and data collection (Section 3.3)

4.     Type of analysis (thematic analysis, Section 3.4)

5.     Sampling and final sample characteristics (Section 3.5)

As this is an exploratory qualitative study, formal hypotheses were not pre-defined; instead, the research questions guided emergent theme discovery (Clandinin & Connelly, 2004).

All tables have been removed and participant demographics are condensed into a narrative format (Section 3.5) for clarity. While a flowchart could visually represent sampling, we believe the narrative succinctly captures:

·       Key participant characteristics (e.g., urban/rural distribution, institution type, ChatGPT experience levels)

·       Stratified sampling rationale

·       Final sample size (N=18)

This approach maintains rigor while avoiding redundancy.

Section 3.5 now explicitly highlights the final sample’s composition, emphasizing:

·       Representation: Students (n=10) and faculty (n=8) from diverse institutional/geographic contexts.

·       Critical variables: Urban-rural divide (70% urban students vs. 30% rural), ChatGPT adoption levels (50% student adopters).

·       Relevance to research questions: These characteristics directly address how place (urban/rural) and sociality (institutional policies) shape ChatGPT integration.

Comment 4:  The data analysis aligns with the research questions outlined throughout the manuscript. However, it is recommended to highlight findings that directly respond to those questions at the beginning of this section.

Tables 4 and 5 could be moved to the appendix to avoid duplicating information already discussed in the analysis.

Response 4: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have restructured the Results section (Section 4) to immediately foreground key findings tied to each research question:

1.     Opening Summary (New Subsection 4.1) now provides a concise overview of how the data answers the three RQs:

o   RQ1 (Student Experiences): Themes of efficiency gains vs. dependency risks (supported by quotes in 4.1.1–4.1.3).

o   RQ2 (Faculty Integration): Pedagogical adaptation and integrity concerns (detailed in 4.2.1–4.2.3).

o   RQ3 (Challenges): Urban-rural divides and "silent acceptance" (expanded in 4.3.1–4.3.3).

2.     Clear Signposting: Each subsection now explicitly links findings to RQs (e.g., "Responding to RQ1, students reported...").

This change improves navigability and ensures readers quickly grasp the study’s empirical contributions. Further, Tables 4 and 5 have been removed to eliminate redundancy.

Comment 5: One of the main limitations of the paper is the lack of engagement with existing literature. This section is essential for situating the findings within the broader academic context. It is recommended to compare the results with similar studies conducted in the Philippines or in other cultural settings.

As with previous sections, the structure is somewhat unclear. The discussion should begin by restating the key findings, contrasting them with existing literature, discussing theoretical implications, and presenting the main limitations of the study

Response 5: The reviewer's comment about the lack of engagement with existing literature and the need for a clearer structure in the Discussion section has been addressed in the revised manuscript. Here’s how the revisions align with the reviewer’s feedback:

1.     Engagement with Existing Literature:

o   The revised manuscript includes a dedicated subsection titled "5.3.2. Literature Synthesis: Philippine Patterns in Global Context", which explicitly compares the study's findings with global trends and prior research. For example:

§  It contrasts the "silent acceptance" phenomenon in the Philippines with similar observations in U.S. higher education (Rudolph et al., 2023).

§  It highlights how the urban-rural divide in the Philippines exceeds disparities reported in other middle-income countries like Thailand and Malaysia (Achruh et al., 2024; Sinnappan et al., 2023).

§  It discusses faculty ethical concerns in the Philippine context alongside global patterns (Verano-Tacoronte et al., 2025).

2.     Clearer Structure in the Discussion:
The Discussion section (Section 5) is now organized into distinct subsections that follow a logical flow:

o   5.1. Theoretical Contributions: Restates key findings through Clandinin & Connelly’s (2004) framework (temporality, sociality, place) and introduces new concepts like "ethical displacement" and "ethical ecosystems."

o   5.2. Research Question Analysis: Directly addresses each research question, linking findings to prior literature (e.g., student dependency patterns vs. Espartinez’s 2024 Q-methodology study).

o   5.3. Theoretical Implications: Explicitly ties findings to broader theoretical debates (e.g., digital divides, policy gaps) and global comparisons.

o   5.4. Limitations: Acknowledges sample size constraints and contextual specificity while suggesting future research directions (e.g., longitudinal studies).

3.     Comparative Analysis:
The manuscript now systematically contrasts Philippine findings with other cultural settings, such as:

o   The "capability-accessibility gap" unique to the Philippines (high English proficiency but limited infrastructure) compared to Brazil or Thailand (de la Torre & Baldeon-Calisto, 2024).

o   Faculty attitudes in the Philippines versus Western "policy-driven" or African "enthusiastic adoption" contexts (Mhlanga, 2023).

4.     Restatement of Key Findings:
The Discussion opens by summarizing three critical findings (urban-rural divides, "silent acceptance," ethical tensions) and later revisits them in the global context (Section 5.3.2), ensuring alignment with the reviewer’s request for clarity.

Comment 6: Conclusion; This section should incorporate the future research directions and practical recommendations currently presented in the discussion.

Response 6: Key Revisions in the Conclusion (Section 6)

1.     Integration of Future Research Directions:

o   The Conclusion now includes a dedicated subsection (6.3. Future Research Directions) that explicitly outlines four key areas for future work, drawn from the Discussion:

§  Longitudinal mixed-methods research to track AI integration over time.

§  Comparative cross-cultural studies with other Global South contexts.

§  Experimental approaches to test faculty concerns about critical thinking erosion.

§  Policy effectiveness studies to evaluate institutional responses to "silent acceptance."

2.     Practical Recommendations Moved to Conclusion:

o   The Discussion’s recommendations (previously in Section 5.2.3) are now streamlined into Section 6.2. Practical Recommendations, with actionable steps such as:

§  Infrastructure investment for rural connectivity.

§  Faculty development programs for ethical AI use.

§  Policy frameworks to address "silent acceptance."

§  Curriculum integration of AI literacy.

3.     Clearer Synthesis:

o   The Conclusion opens with a concise synthesis of findings (6.1. Synthesis of Findings), linking them directly to the recommendations and future research needs, ensuring coherence.

Comment 7: The paper presents valuable insights, particularly regarding the rural–urban divide and the silent adaptation to emerging technologies. However, it is essential to restructure the manuscript appropriately to reduce repetition and ensure clarity.

Response 7:  Thank you for the reviewer’s recognition of the study’s key insights on the rural-urban divide and silent adaptation to ChatGPT in Philippine higher education. Streamlining the manuscript is critical for clarity, and the following structural revisions have been implemented to minimize repetition while preserving analytical depth:

Key Changes Implemented

1.     Consolidated Discussion of Core Themes

o   Urban-Rural Divide:

§  Results (Section 4): Data from students (4.1) and faculty (4.2) presented once with illustrative quotes.

§  Discussion (Section 5.1): Theoretical analysis through Clandinin & Connelly’s place dimension, reframing disparities as "determinants of ethical agency" without rehashing data.

o   Silent Acceptance:

§  Defined empirically in Results (4.1.4, 4.2.4) as participant-observed behavior.

§  Analyzed in Discussion (5.1) as institutional "ethical displacement," avoiding redundant examples.

2.     Sharpened Section Roles

o   Results (Section 4): Strictly limited to findings (e.g., usage patterns, quotes).

o   Discussion (Section 5): Focuses on interpretation (e.g., theoretical implications, literature comparisons).

o   Conclusion and Recommendation (Section 6): Synthesizes takeaways concisely and houses all recommendations (6.2) and future research (6.3), removed from Discussion.

3.     Removed Redundant Content

o   Deleted overlapping descriptions of the urban-rural divide in Sections 4 and 5.

o   Replaced repetitive definitions (e.g., "silent acceptance") with cross-references as noted in Section 4.3.2.

o   Streamlined policy implications, now centralized in Conclusion (6.2).

4.     Added Structural Signposts

o   Explicit transitions (e.g., *"Building on the rural-urban disparities identified in Section 4..."*) to guide readers without repetition.

o   Subsection headers in Discussion (5.1–5.4) to clarify distinct contributions (theory vs. practice).

Impact on Clarity

·       Reduced redundancy: Themes are introduced, analyzed, and concluded sequentially without backtracking.

·       Enhanced flow: Readers encounter each concept (e.g., silent acceptance) in a logical progression: Observed (Results) → Interpreted (Discussion) → Acted Upon (Conclusion).

·       Preserved rigor: All key insights remain intact but are now more accessible.

Example of Revisions

·       Before: The urban-rural divide’s impact on employability appeared in both Results and Discussion.

·       After: Results (4.3) note the empirical trend; Discussion (5.2.3) links it to broader inequities, citing literature (e.g., Espartinez, 2024). These revisions fully address the reviewer’s concern while strengthening the manuscript’s coherence. Thank you for the constructive feedback! 

Additional clarifications

The paper has a revised title:  Between Innovation and Tradition: A Narrative Inquiry of Students’ and Teachers’ Experiences with ChatGPT in Philippine Higher Education

  The new title best captures the essence of the paper.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer 2:

I am deeply grateful for your invaluable feedback and insightful comments on my paper. Your thoughtful suggestions and meticulous attention to detail are deeply appreciated.

I genuinely appreciate the time and expertise you have generously devoted to the improvement of my manuscript.

With every best wish,

Alma S. Espartinez

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

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

Comments 1: This study is focused on the integration of ChatGPT in Philippine higher education institutions through Narrative Inquiry to explore the lived experiences of 18 participants (10 students and 8 faculty members). The research identifies three important themes: strong ethical guidelines, blending traditional and modern pedagogical methods, 8 and optimizing tasks while maintaining academic integrity. The research adds further data to the publications made about AI by sharing information about Greek students. The methodology is adequate and only by enhancing the sample could this article gain new and further perspectives on the topic. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments and do address the main question posed because the article delivers the literature review and the data collected and discussed into a coherent analysis. The references are appropriate, related to contemporary research made about the topic and validate the findings.

Response 1:  Regarding the reviewer's observation about Greek students, this may have been a minor oversight in referencing. The study focused exclusively on the Philippine context, as highlighted in our participant demographics (Section 3.5) and throughout the findings. We have double-checked the manuscript to ensure no unintended references to other national contexts appear.

Concerning the suggestion to enhance the sample size, we respectfully clarify that our sample of 18 participants (10 students and 8 faculty members) was determined by:

1.     The qualitative nature of narrative inquiry, where depth of understanding rather than statistical generalizability is prioritized (Clandinin & Connelly, 2004)

2.     Achievement of thematic saturation, where no new themes emerged in later interviews (Guest et al., 2006)

3.     Purposeful sampling to ensure diversity across:

o   Institution types (public/private)

o   Geographic settings (urban/rural)

o   Levels of ChatGPT experience (novice/expert)

That said, I fully agree with the reviewer that expanding the sample could yield additional valuable perspectives. In the revised manuscript's "Future Research" section (now 6.3), I have added specific recommendations for:

·       A follow-up study with a larger, comparative sample across Southeast Asian countries

·       Inclusion of additional stakeholder groups (e.g., administrators, policymakers)

·       Longitudinal tracking of the same participants to examine evolving experiences

I have also strengthened the "Limitations" subsection (5.4) to more explicitly discuss how future work might build on our findings through expanded sampling approaches while maintaining the depth of qualitative insight that narrative inquiry provides.

The reviewer's positive assessment of our thematic findings, methodological adequacy, and literature integration is particularly encouraging. We have further refined these aspects in the revised manuscript by:

1.     Sharpening the presentation of our three key themes in the Abstract and Introduction

2.     Enhancing the methodological transparency in Section 3

3.     Updating references to include the most recent 2024 and 2025 publications in the field

I believe these revisions, along with the clarifications provided here, address the reviewer's constructive suggestions while maintaining the study's original strengths as they kindly noted. Thank you again for this valuable feedback that has helped improve our work.

Additional clarifications

The paper has a revised title:  Between Innovation and Tradition: A Narrative Inquiry of Students’ and Teachers’ Experiences with ChatGPT in Philippine Higher Education

  The new title best captures the essence of the paper.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer 3:

I am deeply grateful for your invaluable feedback and insightful comments on my paper. Your thoughtful suggestions and meticulous attention to detail are deeply appreciated.

I genuinely appreciate the time and expertise you have generously devoted to the improvement of my manuscript.

With every best wish,

Alma S. Espartinez

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

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

Comments 1: The research article investigates the integration of ChatGPT in Philippine higher education, focusing on the experiences of students and faculty through narrative inquiry. It identifies key themes including convenience, learning enhancement, ethical concerns, policy considerations, and the digital divide between urban and rural settings. The study reveals both opportunities and challenges.

A major strength of the research lies in its evidence-based, culturally sensitive recommendations for the equitable and effective implementation of AI in education. By addressing issues such as digital literacy and regulatory gaps, the study positions ChatGPT not only as a pedagogical aid but as a driver for broader conversations on equity, integrity, and innovation in the educational landscape.

Nevertheless, the author should pay attention to the following weak points revealed:

While the study achieved thematic saturation with 18 participants, the generalisability of specific themes across all Philippine HEIs may be limited.

The research should employ comparative studies across diverse cultural and socio-economic contexts to provide broader insights into ChatGPT integration in different educational systems. This would help determine if the themes identified in this study are consistent across a larger and more varied sample, enhancing the generalisability of the findings.

Response 1:  This author appreciates the reviewer’s insightful feedback regarding the generalizability of our findings. I acknowledge that the study’s qualitative design, with its focus on depth and context-specific insights from 18 participants, inherently prioritizes rich thematic exploration over statistical generalizability. However, I have taken several steps to address this concern in the revised manuscript and future research directions:

1.     Explicit Discussion of Limitations (Section 5.4):

o   It is now explicitly stated that the findings are contextually bound to Philippine HEIs and may not fully represent all institutional or cultural settings.

o   The need for comparative studies (e.g., across urban/rural or public/private HEIs) is highlighted to test the transferability of themes.

2.     Enhanced Future Research Directions (Section 7.3):

o   Longitudinal and cross-cultural studies are proposed to validate whether the identified themes (e.g., "silent acceptance," ethical displacement) persist in broader samples or other Global South contexts.

o   The value of mixed-methods approaches is emphasized to complement our qualitative findings with quantitative measures of prevalence.

3.     Theoretical Generalizability:

o   While the sample size is small, the use of Clandinin & Connelly’s (2004) narrative inquiry framework ensures that the themes are analytically generalizable—that is, they offer transferable insights into how socio-technical (e.g., urban-rural divides) and institutional (e.g., policy gaps) factors shape AI adoption.

4.     Comparative Context Added (Section 2.2.1):

o   The revised literature review now contrasts Philippine patterns with other countries (e.g., Brazil’s offline solutions, Thailand’s infrastructure investments), demonstrating how local findings might inform or diverge from global trends.

Commitment to Future Work:
Broader comparative studies are indeed essential, and I am currently planning a follow-up project across Southeast Asian HEIs to test the robustness of these themes. Thank you for this valuable suggestion, which strengthens the roadmap for future research.

Comments 2: The study’s objectives are again stated (lines 178–182), but they do not match those outlined in the introduction. Additionally, the paragraph on the study’s contributions (lines 183–189) should be moved to the discussion or conclusion sections.

Response 2: The study primarily relied on semi-structured interviews, which are subject to potential biases. There were no objective measures to corroborate these narratives.

Comment 3: Methodology:  This section should consolidate all content related to research design and analysis, including the description of objectives, hypotheses, and research questions.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 do not add significant value. This information could be condensed into a flowchart, focusing instead on the final characteristics of the sample used in the fieldwork.

The sequence of the methodology section could be improved as follows:

·       Presentation of objectives and research questions

·       Methodological design (narrative inquiry)

·       Instruments and data collection

·       Type of analysis

Sampling and final sample characteristics

Response 3:  Thank you for the valuable observation regarding potential biases in semi-structured interviews. While self-reported narratives are inherently subjective, our study intentionally employed this method to capture rich, contextualized experiences of ChatGPT use—a perspective that quantitative measures alone could not provide (Clandinin & Connelly, 2004). That said, I acknowledge that interview data may reflect participants’ perceptions rather than objective behaviors.  This approach aligns with seminal AI-in-education studies (e.g., Rudolph et al., 2023; Mollick & Mollick, 2023) that rely on interviews to explore emergent adoption challenges.

However, several safeguards were implemented to enhance rigor:

1.     Methodological Alignment:
As a qualitative study exploring lived experiences, narrative inquiry deliberately centers participant perspectives rather than seeking “objective” verification. The approach is well-established for examining how individuals construct meaning around phenomena like technology adoption (Pötschke, 2021).

2.     Triangulation Measures:
While no quantitative measures were used, we employed:

o   Member checking: Participants validated transcript interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

o   Thematic saturation: Recruitment continued until no new patterns emerged (Guest et al., 2006)

o   Demographic diversity: narrative presentation is given.

While some limitations (e.g., lack of quantitative data) persist due to the study's qualitative design, these are now explicitly framed as areas for future research. I agree that mixed-methods studies could valuably complement these findings, and we now explicitly recommend this in Future Research Directions.  

Comment 4:  The research should examine the direct impact of ChatGPT on learning outcomes, such as critical thinking and academic performance. Incorporating objective measures like analysing student work produced with and without ChatGPT or comparing learning outcomes in courses with different levels of AI integration could provide a more comprehensive understanding beyond self-reported experiences.

Response 4: Thank you for this insight. This study employed narrative inquiry to explore how students and educators perceive and experience ChatGPT integration, emphasizing cultural, ethical, and infrastructural challenges unique to Philippine HEIs (Section 3). While the study did not measure learning outcomes directly, our findings reveal key concerns about over-reliance (Section 4.1.3) and critical thinking erosion (Section 4.2.3), which align with global debates on AI’s pedagogical trade-offs (e.g., Mollick & Mollick, 2023; Dwivedi et al., 2023). These qualitative insights lay the groundwork for future experimental or longitudinal studies.

For instance, faculty reported observing declines in students’ independent problem-solving skills (T5, T8), while students described shifting from “copy-pasting” to more evaluative ChatGPT use over time (S1, S9). These narratives suggest hypotheses about AI’s impact on learning that could be tested quantitatively in future work.

Comment 5: The study focused on perceptions and experiences but did not provide direct evidence of ChatGPT's impact on learning outcomes.

The research should focus on examining the direct impact of ChatGPT on learning outcomes. This could involve specifically measuring changes in student skills, knowledge acquisition, and academic performance because of ChatGPT integration, moving beyond just their perceptions of the tool.

Response 5: While we agree this is a critical area for future research, our study’s qualitative design prioritized understanding the socio-cultural and institutional dynamics shaping ChatGPT adoption in Philippine higher education—a gap identified in the literature (see Section 2.5, Research Gap).

1.   Defending the Study’s Scope

·       Methodological Alignment: As a narrative inquiry, the study sought to uncover how students and faculty perceive and experience ChatGPT integration, particularly in contexts of infrastructural inequality and cultural resistance. This approach aligns with Clandinin & Connelly’s (2004) framework, which emphasizes lived experiences as foundational to understanding complex educational phenomena.

·       Indirect Evidence of Impact: While we did not measure learning outcomes quantitatively, participant narratives revealed proxy indicators of impact:

o   Faculty observed declines in critical thinking when students over-relied on ChatGPT (Section 4.2.3: "While ChatGPT makes learning easier, I’ve noticed a decline in students’ ability to develop critical thinking skills independently" [T5]).

o   Students reported shifts in their academic behaviors, such as transitioning from "copy-pasting" to more evaluative use over time (Section 4.1.3: "Initially, I only relied on the copy-paste technique, but now I evaluate it carefully" [S1]).

2.   Commitment to Future Research

I acknowledge the importance of direct outcome measures and have added explicit recommendations for future work in the revised manuscript:

·       Section 6.3 (Future Research Directions) now proposes:

o   Longitudinal studies tracking ChatGPT’s correlation with grades/skill development.

o   Experimental designs comparing courses with/without ChatGPT integration.

o   Mixed-methods approaches pairing narratives with behavioral data (e.g., usage logs, pre/post-tests).

3.     Theoretical Justification

The focus on perceptions aligns with seminal AI-in-education research (e.g., Rudolph et al., 2023; Mollick & Mollick, 2023), which argues that adoption challenges (e.g., ethics, access) must be understood before outcome studies can be contextualized. The Philippine setting—with its urban-rural divide and "silent acceptance" culture—required this foundational step.

Revised Manuscript Updates:

·       Section 5.4 (Limitations) explicitly notes the lack of outcome measures as a constraint while framing it as an opportunity for future work.

·       Section 2.4 (Benefits/Challenges) now cites global studies linking ChatGPT use to skill acquisition (e.g., Gao et al., 2024) to contextualize our findings.

While this study did not measure learning outcomes directly, it provides the necessary groundwork for such investigations by identifying key variables (e.g., dependency, infrastructural barriers) that future experimental studies must control for. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this direction and have ensured our discussion underscores its importance.

Comment 6: The article contains instances of self-reference (e.g., lines 371, 376, 347, 350, 368, 590, etc.), which may impact the academic style and professionalism expected in scholarly writing.

The author should revise the article to eliminate self-references and consistently use a third-person perspective. This adjustment will align the writing with academic conventions, enhance the objectivity and scholarly tone of the research, and maintain the focus on the study rather than on the researchers' personal involvement.

Response 6: I sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s careful attention to academic style and professionalism. I agree that minimizing self-references strengthens objectivity and aligns with scholarly conventions. As suggested, all instances of self-reference (e.g., first-person pronouns such as "I," "my," or "we") have been carefully revised to adopt a third-person perspective or passive voice, ensuring alignment with academic conventions.