Chilean Teachers’ Knowledge of and Experience with Artificial Intelligence as a Pedagogical Tool

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this engaging and timely study. The authors employ the well-validated Intelligent-TPACK instrument to examine Chilean teachers’ self-assessed knowledge of artificial intelligence. Overall, the manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the growing literature on AI readiness in K–12 education and warrants publication after attention to a few minor points.

Minor Revisions

1. Contextual Factors in Analysis
   In the literature review, you rightly emphasize that school context (e.g., public vs. private) can shape teachers’ opportunities and attitudes. Please discuss its potential influence in the discussion.

2. Rationale for Metropolitan Region
   The decision to limit data collection to the Metropolitan Region requires further justification. 

3. Year of Data Collection
   Given the rapid evolution of AI tools and their pedagogical integration, specifying the exact year (and, if available, months) when data were gathered is essential. Please add this information.

4. Clarification of Literature Link (pp. 620–630)
   The discussion on lines 620–630 invokes prior studies but leaves ambiguous how they relate to your current analysis. Please specify which findings you are comparing, highlight points of convergence or divergence, and make explicit how these earlier works informed your interpretation.

5. Source of Teachers’ Technological Knowledge (pp. 671–677)
   You attribute teachers’ technological knowledge gains to formal training, yet it is plausible that many acquired these skills through informal means (e.g., personal practice, online resources). This nuance is important, especially as you note a gap in pedagogical application. Please expand this section by acknowledging alternative pathways for TK development and discussing how this might affect your conclusions.

Once these points are addressed, I believe the manuscript will be a solid contribution to the field and highly relevant to educators, policymakers, and researchers interested in AI literacy and teacher development.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Please see the attachment.

Greetings,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Please see the attachment.

Greetings,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for the revised manuscript. The changes you have implemented are thoughtful and substantial; they clearly enhance the paper’s clarity, methodological robustness, and overall contribution. I appreciate, in particular, the strengthened validation work, the more cautious treatment of inference, and the improved reporting of analyses.

Before I can recommend acceptance, I would be grateful if you could address the following final points:

1. PCA vs EFA terminology
   Principal Components Analysis (PCA) is not Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). EFA models common variance and extracts factors, whereas PCA decomposes total variance into components. Please remove references to “EFA” and use “PCA” consistently throughout (e.g., lines 1033, 1039, 1040, 1049, 1088).
2. Adjusted R² labelling consistency (TCK)
   At line 577 TCK is described as “small effect (upper bound) (Adjusted R² = .127)”, while Table 10 labels it “Medium”. Please resolve this discrepancy – “small” is the appropriate label.
3. Definition of PCK (lines 136–139)
   The sentence appears to combine two ideas. The first clause (“knowledge teachers possess regarding the use and integration of technologies…”) does not pertain to PCK. Please revise to retain only the canonical definition of PCK (i.e., knowledge to transform disciplinary content into forms that are comprehensible and teachable to students through appropriate pedagogical strategies).
4. Terminology: “confidence” vs knowledge (line 541)
   You have largely standardised on “(self-perceived) knowledge,” which fits the TPACK domain. At line 541 “confidence” still appears; please replace with “knowledge” or “self-perceived knowledge” for terminological consistency.
5. Decimal separators and numerical formatting
   Please report numerical values in a consistent format across the manuscript. In the text you use a full stop for decimals, whereas in Table A1 the Skew, Kurt, and CITC columns use commas. Kindly harmonise all decimals (preferably full stops, to match the rest of the paper).

Thank you again for your careful revisions. Addressing these minor points will, in my view, bring the manuscript fully into line with best practice and make it ready for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

We thank you once again for your time.
Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf