Advancing Generative Intelligent Tutoring Systems with GPT-4: Design, Evaluation, and a Modular Framework for Future Learning Platforms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presents an interesting idea for a Generative Intelligent Tutoring System.
I have a few remarks:
1. Section 2.1:
The discrepancy between the text and Figure 1 needs to be corrected. The text describes four modules - Expert Module, Student Module, Tutor Module, and User Interface Module - but these modules are missing from Figure 1.
2. The description in Section 3 overall needs improvement to enhance clarity.
3. First paragraph of Section 3: The template text from the MDPI on lines 131–133 should be removed.
4. Section 3.1:
The description of JSON on lines 142–145 is generic and unnecessary. It should be shortened.
The concept of "robot" appears unexpectedly, and its connection to "module" is not clear in the text.
5. Section 3.2:
The modules - Content Retriever, Data Analyzer, Instructional Advisor, and Feedback Assessor - are explained after the generation technology in Section 3.1.
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 should be swapped, with corresponding adjustments made to the text.
6. The authors' contributions should be presented more clearly.
7. It would be beneficial to include experimental results from other disciplines in the article if such experiments have been conducted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1:
We hope this message finds you well. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, titled "Advancing Generative Intelligent Tutoring Systems with GPT-4: Design, Evaluation, and a Modular Framework for Future Learning Platforms" (electronics-3362838). We appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that our responses and revisions have adequately addressed all your concerns. Please find attached the revised manuscript. The revised text based on your comments is highlighted in red.
Moreover, we have provided specific responses to each comment (in italics) below.
Thanks again for the invaluable feedback!
Comment 1: Section 2.1: The discrepancy between the text and Figure 1 needs to be corrected. The text describes four modules - Expert Module, Student Module, Tutor Module, and User Interface Module - but these modules are missing from Figure 1.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy between the text and Figure 1. We have carefully revised Figure 1 to ensure it accurately reflects the four modules described in the text—Expert Module, Student Module, Tutor Module, and User Interface Module. The updated figure now aligns with the textual description, providing a clear and consistent representation. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has helped improve the clarity and coherence of our manuscript.
Comment 2:
The description in Section 3 overall needs improvement to enhance clarity.
Response 2: Thank you for your constructive feedback. To address this comment, we have rewritten Section 3 to enhance clarity and improve the reader's understanding of our proposed framework. These revisions aim to provide a more coherent and accessible presentation of the framework while retaining the technical rigor necessary for an academic audience. We believe these changes address your concerns and significantly improve the clarity of Section 3.
Comment 3: First paragraph of Section 3: The template text from the MDPI on lines 131–133 should be removed.
Response 3: We sincerely apologize for the oversight in including the template text. This was an unintentional error on our part, and we have now removed the template text to ensure the manuscript meets the required standards. We are grateful to the reviewer for bringing this to our attention, as it has helped us improve the professionalism and quality of our work. Thank you once again for your meticulous review and valuable suggestions.
Comment 4: The description of JSON on lines 142–145 is generic and unnecessary. It should be shortened. The concept of "robot" appears unexpectedly, and its connection to "module" is not clear in the text.
Response 4: Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the description of JSON and the unexpected appearance of "robot" in the text. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address these concerns. Specifically, the description of JSON has been shortened as per your suggestion, and the term "robot" has been replaced with "module" to avoid any confusion. We sincerely apologize for the lack of clarity in the original text and for any inconvenience caused. Additionally, we have verified that these revisions do not affect the study's results or conclusions. We deeply appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped improve the precision and readability of our work.
Comment 5: Section 3.2:
The modules - Content Retriever, Data Analyzer, Instructional Advisor, and Feedback Assessor - are explained after the generation technology in Section 3.1.
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 should be swapped, with corresponding adjustments made to the text.
Response 5: Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the order of Sections 3.1 and 3.2. We completely agree with your recommendation to swap these sections, as it significantly improves the logical flow of the manuscript. By presenting the modules—Content Retriever, Data Analyzer, Instructional Advisor, and Feedback Assessor—before discussing the generation technology, the structure now better aligns with the reader's understanding of the system’s design and functionality. We have made the necessary adjustments, and we believe this change enhances the clarity and coherence of the text. Your feedback has been invaluable in strengthening the overall quality of the manuscript, and we truly appreciate your careful review.
Comment 6: The authors' contributions should be presented more clearly.
Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. To address your comment, we have revised the Introduction section to highlight the specific research problems our study aims to solve. The revised text now clearly outlines the challenges in integrating GPT-4 into ITS and the lack of robust evaluation methods, emphasizing how our proposed framework addresses these gaps. Additionally, we have rewritten 5.1 Contributions and Implications and Conclusion to explicitly present our contributions. We appreciate your insight, which has helped us improve the clarity and impact of our manuscript.
Comment 7: It would be beneficial to include experimental results from other disciplines in the article if such experiments have been conducted.
Response 7: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. Currently, our study focuses on evaluating the framework and its implementation in the domain of foundational English learning, as described in the Socratic Playground for Learning (SPL) case study. While we acknowledge the value of extending the experimental results to other disciplines, this was not within the scope of our current work. However, we recognize the importance of demonstrating the versatility of our framework across diverse educational contexts. To address this, we have emphasized in the Discussion and Future Work section the potential to apply our framework in other disciplines, such as STEM and the humanities, and suggested future studies to explore these applications.
We appreciate your feedback, which provides valuable direction for expanding the scope of our research in future iterations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript demonstrates an innovative approach to the development of a Generative Intelligent Teaching System (Generative ITS) using GPT-4 technology and validates its feasibility and effectiveness through the “Socratic Playground for Learning” (SPL) case study. The research is well defined, the framework design is clear, and the data analysis and discussion of results are persuasive. The application of personalized education and adaptive learning, in particular, demonstrates the great potential of generative AI. The study adopts an experimental design combining pre-test and post-test, supplemented by questionnaires, to evaluate the effectiveness of the system and user experience from multiple dimensions, with detailed data and rigorous analytical methods.
The following are some of my suggestions to help further improve this manuscript.
1. I would like to add a special discussion of GPT-4's application features (e.g., generative feedback and real-time content generation) in the literature review section, and summarize the comparison with other generative AI models.
2. the consideration of students' emotional factors, such as learning anxiety or motivation changes assessed by standardized questionnaires, can be added to more fully understand the impact of the system on user experience.
3. some terms are inconsistent, such as “adaptive learning” and “personalized learning”, and the terminology can be slightly standardized.
4. add a detailed description of the experimental environment in the Methods section, such as the provision of technical support, the type of learning device (e.g., computer or tablet), and the control of external disturbances during the learning process.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We hope this message finds you well. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, titled "Advancing Generative Intelligent Tutoring Systems with GPT-4: Design, Evaluation, and a Modular Framework for Future Learning Platforms" (electronics-3362838). We appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that our responses and revisions have adequately addressed all your concerns. Please find attached the revised manuscript. The revised text based on your comments is highlighted in green.
Moreover, we have provided specific responses to each comment (in italics) below.
Thanks again for the invaluable feedback!
Comment 1: I would like to add a special discussion of GPT-4's application features (e.g., generative feedback and real-time content generation) in the literature review section, and summarize the comparison with other generative AI models.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. Your suggestion aligns with our goal of providing a comprehensive understanding of GPT-4's capabilities and their unique contributions to generative AI applications. In response, we have added a new section, '2.1 GPT-4's Application Features,' which describes GPT-4's advancements in contextual understanding, dynamic feedback generation, and multimodal integration. This section highlights its ability to provide tailored feedback, generate adaptive content, and outperform earlier models, such as GPT-3, in coherence and nuanced responses. Additionally, we discuss GPT-4’s strengths in multilingual and domain-specific tasks, as well as its limitations, including computational demands and finite context windows. Thank you once again for your meticulous review and valuable suggestions.
Comment 2: the consideration of students' emotional factors, such as learning anxiety or motivation changes assessed by standardized questionnaires, can be added to more fully understand the impact of the system on user experience.
Response 2: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion regarding the inclusion of students' emotional factors, such as learning anxiety or motivation changes, assessed by standardized questionnaires. We acknowledge the importance of these factors in understanding the broader impact of the system on user experience. While this aspect was not explored in the current study, we have included it in the manuscript's Limitations and Future Work section as a key direction for future research. We appreciate your valuable feedback, which has enhanced the depth and perspective of our work.
Comment 3: some terms are inconsistent, such as “adaptive learning” and “personalized learning”, and the terminology can be slightly standardized.
Response 3: Thank you for your helpful feedback. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and standardized the terminology to consistently use "personalized learning" throughout the text. We believe this change enhances clarity and ensures coherence in the presentation of our work. We sincerely appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped us improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
Comment 4: add a detailed description of the experimental environment in the Methods section, such as the provision of technical support, the type of learning device (e.g., computer or tablet), and the control of external disturbances during the learning process.
Response 4: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We completely agree that this additional information will enhance the clarity and reproducibility of our study. Accordingly, we have revised the section to include details about technical support, the type of learning device, and measures taken to control external disturbances during the learning process. We appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the rigor of our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for the improvements made to the article.
Good luck with your future work on the topic!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have carefully and meticulously revised the previously raised questions and suggestions in this revision and provided detailed explanations. The revised manuscript has been significantly improved in terms of logic, science and presentation. In addition, all my doubts were fully answered. Overall, I believe that the manuscript has met the requirements for publication.
