A Pilot Practitioner’s Inquiry into Students’ Reflections on AI-Generated Podcasts in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

On page 3, in the methodology section, there is a formatting problem.

Author Response

Comment 1: On page 3, in the methodology section, there is a formatting problem.
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. The apparent formatting issue in the methodology section arises from the journal’s submission template and layout rather than from the original manuscript. I understand that the production team will reformat the accepted paper before publication. Nevertheless, I have carefully checked the methodology section to ensure that the structure, headings, and text are clear in the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this to be a very coherent and methodically presented study. The rationale is clear, the theoretical background is robust and the methodology is well explained and implemented. A key strength is the way that references to the literature are woven throughout the manuscript rather than confined to a standalone lit review section.

While not constituting a leap forward in the knowledge base in this area, this study builds very well on existing research and invites future investigations on educational podcasts in the generative AI era. The conclusion provides a realistic message for practitioners too: "AI-generated podcasts can act as scaffolding tools that complement traditional teaching rather than replace it."

Below are a few things that I thought could be improved. 

More SYNTHESIS of literature. Multiple relevant strands of research (podcasting, accessibility, AI) are explored and connected with the empirical context of your study, but it's less clear how each of these strands converges to justify your study. Would it be possible to add a few sentences to the conclusion tying the analysis/findings back to the scholarly context in order to bring it all together? Also, I can appreciate the implicit connection between AI's potential in terms of personalisation and the more widely recognised "inclusive" nature of podcasts, but you could state (and elaborate on) this connection more explicitly. 

In the Discussion of Findings, the theme-by-theme organisation seems to work well, but you might consider concluding each theme subsection with an analytical sentence or two to highlight the key "takeaway" point.

The analysis also occasionally risks over-attributing observations of student behaviour to the podcast format. Consider critically exploring alternative explanations occasionally - or if there is no room for this, you could even just add a clear acknowledgement that it's not possible to attribute things entirely to the podcasts. There is also scope for more precision in distinguishing between findings related to the efficacy of podcasts in general, and those relating specifically to AI-generated podcasts. I feel the focus should be on the latter wherever possible, as this is will help underscore the novelty of the study. 

Author Response

Comment 1: Multiple relevant strands of research (podcasting, accessibility, AI) are explored and connected with the empirical context of your study, but it is less clear how each of these strands converges to justify your study. Would it be possible to add a few sentences to the conclusion tying the analysis/findings back to the scholarly context in order to bring it all together?

Author response:
Thank you for this helpful observation. I agree that the conclusion would benefit from a clearer synthesis of the podcasting, accessibility, and generative AI strands outlined in the literature review. I have therefore revised the conclusion to make this convergence explicit. The updated version links the study’s findings to the established pedagogical value of podcasting, the role of accessibility and inclusive practice in resource design, and current discussions on the opportunities and concerns surrounding the use of generative AI in higher education. This addition strengthens the justification for the study and clarifies how the three strands inform the contribution of the research.

Comment 2:
In the Discussion of Findings, the theme-by-theme organisation seems to work well, but you might consider concluding each theme subsection with an analytical sentence or two to highlight the key "takeaway" point. The analysis also occasionally risks over-attributing observations of student behaviour to the podcast format. Consider critically exploring alternative explanations occasionally - or if there is no room for this, you could even just add a clear acknowledgement that it's not possible to attribute things entirely to the podcasts. There is also scope for more precision in distinguishing between findings related to the efficacy of podcasts in general, and those relating specifically to AI-generated podcasts. I feel the focus should be on the latter wherever possible, as this is will help underscore the novelty of the study. 
Author response:
Thank you for these thoughtful suggestions. I have revised the Discussion section accordingly. Each theme subsection now ends with a brief analytical statement highlighting the central point that emerges from the theme. Also, I have added explicit acknowledgement that student behaviours and perceptions cannot be attributed solely to the podcast format, noting that other contextual influences may have contributed to their responses. In addition, the revised text now differentiates more clearly between insights relating to podcasting as a general pedagogical approach and those that pertain specifically to AI-generated podcasts. This distinction strengthens the contribution of the study by clarifying where the findings speak to the broader literature and where they highlight the particular features of AI-generated audio resources.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please find below the reviewer’s comments on your manuscript. The topic is highly interesting and relevant; however, the paper would benefit from further development and methodological expansion. In particular, we recommend including an additional study, for example a survey conducted on a larger and more diverse sample, to strengthen the validity and generalizability of the findings.

Furthermore, several methodological and structural aspects could be clarified and supported with additional literature. By refining the theoretical background, providing more detailed information on the data collection and analysis process, and expanding the discussion section, the manuscript could reach a level suitable for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

The topic has significant potential, and the authors are strongly encouraged to continue developing this line of research.

 

 

Comment on the title:

The title is catchy and effective, but it does not fully reflect the actual focus of the research. Although it includes the concept of learning, the content of the paper is more concerned with students' reflections on their experience with podcasts than with the learning process itself. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to omit the word learning from the title or replace it with a term that better describes the nature of the research, such as students' reflections or perceptions.

 

Abstract Comment:

The abstract is of appropriate length and formally complies with the journal guidelines, but lacks clarity regarding the research objective and formulation of the research question. It is difficult for the reader to understand exactly what the central intention of the study was. The final section of the abstract also lists certain shortcomings of the study, and it would be more appropriate to present the conclusions with more caution. At present, they seem rather general and insufficiently connected to the specific findings of the study.

Introduction Comments:

In the introduction, the authors provide a useful historical overview of the development of podcasts and their increased popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the emphasis on the use of podcasts in an educational context is not sufficiently supported by arguments or recent literature. As the text states that podcasts are most often used for entertainment and information purposes, it would be useful to more clearly distinguish educational from non-educational applications and thus establish a firmer foundation for the research focus.

Also, there is a spelling error in the first reference (DO) – "o" should be a lowercase letter. It is recommended to check all references in the text for consistency and accuracy according to citation rules. For a journal article of this caliber, it would be desirable to include more relevant, recent sources that would support the theoretical framework of the research.

The authors do a good job of emphasizing the inclusive potential of podcasts in an educational context, but at the same time they also emphasize the limitations for students with hearing impairments, which leads to some contradiction. It would be useful if they balanced that part more clearly and formulated the relationship between inclusiveness and accessibility more precisely.

It is positive that the part about the role of artificial intelligence is well presented - the authors recognized AI as an upgrade to traditional forms of learning and clearly highlighted its potential advantages. With this, they justified the relevance of the research, especially considering the fact that the podcasts in this case are AI-generated, which represents an innovative approach.

Although the research questions are indicated, they are not sufficiently clearly formulated or clearly connected to the two perspectives that are mentioned - the student's and the educator's. That part should be elaborated in a more structured way so that it is clearer to the reader what exactly is the focus of the research and what questions the study wants to answer.

The introduction mentions practitioner inquiry as the chosen approach and cites one source (Fleet et al.), but the methodological basis for this choice is not explained clearly enough. For a paper that deals with a relatively new area (AI-generated podcasts in education), it would be important to explain in more detail why this particular research approach is appropriate, and to clearly distinguish it from related qualitative approaches.

Also, methodological decisions (such as combining practitioner inquiry with focus groups and thematic analysis) should not be left in the introduction, but moved to the Methodology section and presented there systematically: describe the procedure, the roles of the researcher/practitioner and the method of data collection.

When reading, one gets the impression that the number of participants is very small compared to the ambition of the paper and the journal in which it is intended to be published. It is necessary to either: a) further justify the small sample (e.g. the research is exploratory, pilot, focused on the development of practice),

or b) expand the literature review to show how similar studies in this field deal with a small number of participants.

Currently, the methodological part in the introduction seems superficial and incomplete for work in a journal.

Methodlogy comments:

The methodological section provides basic information about the context and timeframe of the study, which is useful, but the description is too general and lacks several important details that would allow for the replicability of the research.

Although it is stated when the study was conducted, it is not clear in which weeks or phases of the semester the podcasts were presented to the students. This information should be stated more precisely, since the context and timing of the activities can influence student reflections and engagement.

The authors mention the use of the Google Notebook LM tool, but no reference or brief description of its functionality is provided. It is recommended to include a citation or link to an official source and briefly explain why it was chosen and how it was used in the podcast generation process.

The text also lacks key information about the podcasts themselves — their duration, topics, and the number of research articles on which they were based. It would be useful to present this data in a table, along with a brief description of each episode.

Since the authors mention the use of prompts to generate content, it would be worth adding at least one specific example of a prompt used in the creation of a lesson or episode. This would increase the transparency of the methodology and give the reader better insight into the process of using artificial intelligence in an educational context.

The Data Collection section indicates the time period for the study, but the time gap between the end of classes (assumed by May) and the focus groups (in July) suggests that there was a potential loss of engagement and freshness of experience among students. The authors should explain the reasons for postponing the focus groups and consider the possible consequences of such a time gap on the validity and reliability of the data.

It would also be useful to explain why a survey was not used as an additional or alternative method of data collection immediately after the podcast experience. Such an approach could have provided more current impressions and quantitative context with the qualitative insights of the focus groups.

The data collection process is clearly described, but there is a lack of support in the form of scientific references that would point to methodological sources or similar approaches in the literature.

The Data Analysis section states that the analysis was conducted thematically according to the Braun & Clarke six-step approach, but the authors did not specify the specific steps that this approach involves. They should at least be briefly stated and explained as they were applied in this study — for example, how the codes were developed, how they were combined into themes, and how the themes were further interpreted in the context of the research questions.

At present, this section seems to be disorganized and gives the impression that the analytical procedures are described superficially. It is positive that a chapter on ethical considerations is included and that the approval is stated, which contributes to the transparency and ethical basis of the research.

 

Comment on the Discussion of Findings chapter and conclusion:

The results should primarily be more clearly linked to the themes that emerged from the coding process, but this link is not sufficiently visible in the text. Instead of a structured presentation of thematic analysis, the authors mainly cite individual student comments on the usefulness and impressions of the podcast sound, which reduces the analytical depth of the results.

A partial comparison with recent literature is useful, but the discussion is generally too brief and superficial. A deeper connection of the findings with the theoretical framework and previous research is missing, as well as critical reflection on the implications of the findings.

The number of participants (two educators and several students) is not sufficient to draw scientifically relevant conclusions. This sample should be further justified or supplemented with future quantitative research — for example, a survey of a larger number of students and in different teaching contexts.

The part referring to UNESCO insights and similar sources would be more appropriate to move to the introductory part, where it could serve as a justification and motivation for the research. Also, an expanded literature review is needed to provide a better theoretical basis and show how this study fits into existing knowledge.

In the results section, the authors list three main themes, but it would be useful to include a visual representation (e.g., a diagram or table) to make the coding process and the relationships between themes clearer.

The conclusion is too short and does not clearly highlight the scientific contribution of the paper. It should emphasize what the study specifically adds to existing research on AI-generated podcasts and learning.

Finally, the bibliography is insufficient for an article of this level. It is necessary to include a larger number of recent and relevant sources. The topic has significant potential and innovation, but for the paper to be suitable for publication in a scientific journal, the methodological and theoretical framework needs to be significantly expanded and deepened.

Author Response

Comment 1:The title is catchy and effective, but it does not fully reflect the actual focus of the research. Although it includes the concept of learning, the content of the paper is more concerned with students' reflections on their experience with podcasts than with the learning process itself. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to omit the word learning from the title or replace it with a term that better describes the nature of the research, such as students' reflections or perceptions.
Author response: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. I agree that the original title overemphasised “learning” and did not fully capture the reflective and experiential focus of the study. I have therefore revised the title to align more closely with the paper’s aims and analytic emphasis on student perceptions and practitioner reflection. The revised title reflects the exploratory nature of the pilot study and its focus on experiences with AI-generated podcasts within higher education. I have also edited the keywords to reflect the change in the title. 

Comment 2: The abstract is of appropriate length and formally complies with the journal guidelines, but lacks clarity regarding the research objective and formulation of the research question. It is difficult for the reader to understand exactly what the central intention of the study was. The final section of the abstract also lists certain shortcomings of the study, and it would be more appropriate to present the conclusions with more caution. At present, they seem rather general and insufficiently connected to the specific findings of the study.
Author response: In revising the manuscript, the abstract underwent substantial changes to address the concerns raised by this and other reviewers. The central questions are now stated more explicitly, allowing readers to understand the study’s intention without ambiguity.The concluding section has also been reworked. Rather than presenting broad statements or limitations, the abstract now foregrounds conclusions that are directly aligned with the study’s findings, presented with appropriate caution and precision. These adjustments aim to ensure that the abstract reflects the focus, scope, and outcomes of the study with greater accuracy.

Comment 3:In the introduction, the authors provide a useful historical overview of the development of podcasts and their increased popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the emphasis on the use of podcasts in an educational context is not sufficiently supported by arguments or recent literature. As the text states that podcasts are most often used for entertainment and information purposes, it would be useful to more clearly distinguish educational from non-educational applications and thus establish a firmer foundation for the research focus.
Author response: The introduction has been majorly revised with particular attention to clearly distinguish educational from non-educational applications.

Comment 4:Also, there is a spelling error in the first reference (DO) – "o" should be a lowercase letter. It is recommended to check all references in the text for consistency and accuracy according to citation rules. For a journal article of this caliber, it would be desirable to include more relevant, recent sources that would support the theoretical framework of the research.
Author response: All references have been checked.

Comment 5:The authors do a good job of emphasizing the inclusive potential of podcasts in an educational context, but at the same time they also emphasize the limitations for students with hearing impairments, which leads to some contradiction. It would be useful if they balanced that part more clearly and formulated the relationship between inclusiveness and accessibility more precisely.
Authors response: Thank you for this observation. I have revised the section to clarify the distinction between inclusivity and accessibility. The revised text explains that while podcasts can support inclusion by diversifying learning formats, their accessibility depends on the provision of transcripts or alternative resources. This adjustment removes the perceived contradiction and presents a more precise account of how podcasts contribute to inclusive practice.

Comment 6: Although the research questions are indicated, they are not sufficiently clearly formulated or clearly connected to the two perspectives that are mentioned - the student's and the educator's. That part should be elaborated in a more structured way so that it is clearer to the reader what exactly is the focus of the research and what questions the study wants to answer.
Authors response: I have revised the final part of the introduction to state explicitly that the study is organised around two interrelated perspectives: the students’ experience of using AI-generated podcasts and the educator’s reflective practice in designing and implementing them. The RQs have been reformulated accordingly and are now presented as RQ1 (the student's perspective) and RQ2 (the educator perspective), making the focus and structure of the inquiry clearer and more directly aligned with these two viewpoints.

Comment 7: The introduction mentions practitioner inquiry as the chosen approach and cites one source (Fleet et al.), but the methodological basis for this choice is not explained clearly enough. For a paper that deals with a relatively new area (AI-generated podcasts in education), it would be important to explain in more detail why this particular research approach is appropriate, and to clearly distinguish it from related qualitative approaches. Also, methodological decisions (such as combining practitioner inquiry with focus groups and thematic analysis) should not be left in the introduction, but moved to the Methodology section and presented there systematically: describe the procedure, the roles of the researcher/practitioner and the method of data collection.
Authors comment: The introduction has been revised to clarify the methodological rationale for adopting a practitioner inquiry approach, explaining why it is appropriate for examining an emerging pedagogical innovation such as AI-generated podcasts. The distinction between practitioner inquiry and related qualitative approaches is now articulated more clearly. In line with your recommendation, procedural details—including data collection methods, the educator-researcher role, and the analytic process, have been removed from the introduction and relocated to a dedicated Methodology section, where they are now presented in a systematic and structured manner.

Comment 8; When reading, one gets the impression that the number of participants is very small compared to the ambition of the paper and the journal in which it is intended to be published. It is necessary to either: a) further justify the small sample (e.g. the research is exploratory, pilot, focused on the development of practice), or b) expand the literature review to show how similar studies in this field deal with a small number of participants.
Authors response: Thank you for raising this point. The study has been clarified as a pilot practitioner inquiry, where the primary aim is to examine a pedagogical innovation within a single module and to generate practice-based insight rather than generalisable claims. Practitioner inquiry is typically conducted with small cohorts because it is embedded in the educator’s own teaching context and focuses on depth of reflection and situated understanding rather than scale. To strengthen this justification, the revised introduction now clearly positions the study as exploratory and practice-focused. In addition, the literature review has been expanded to reference comparable small-scale practitioner or classroom-based studies in educational technology research, demonstrating that similar sample sizes are common within this methodological tradition. 

Comment 9: Currently, the methodological part in the introduction seems superficial and incomplete for work in a journal.
Authors response: Thank you for this comment. The methodological content previously included in the introduction has now been substantially revised. Instead of presenting procedural details in a compressed form, the introduction focuses solely on establishing the appropriateness of practitioner inquiry as the overarching methodological frame. All methodological and procedural elements, including data collection, the educator-researcher role, and the analytic process—have been expanded and relocated to a fully developed Methodology section. This restructuring provides the depth expected for journal publication while ensuring that the introduction maintains conceptual clarity and focus.

Methodology comments:

Comment 10:The methodological section provides basic information about the context and timeframe of the study, which is useful, but the description is too general and lacks several important details that would allow for the replicability of the research. Although it is stated when the study was conducted, it is not clear in which weeks or phases of the semester the podcasts were presented to the students. This information should be stated more precisely, since the context and timing of the activities can influence student reflections and engagement.
Authors comment: The methodological section has been revised to provide precise information about when the podcasts were introduced, how they aligned with the sequence of weekly sessions, and the specific phases of the module in which students engaged with them. These details are now included to support replicability and to allow readers to understand how timing may have influenced student engagement and reflections.

Comment 11: The authors mention the use of the Google Notebook LM tool, but no reference or brief description of its functionality is provided. It is recommended to include a citation or link to an official source and briefly explain why it was chosen and how it was used in the podcast generation process.
Authors comment: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The methodology section has been revised to include a brief description of Google NotebookLM’s functionality and added an official link to the tool. The revised text now explains why NotebookLM was selected, how it handles uploaded materials, and how it was used to generate the AI-powered podcasts for the module.

comment 12: Since the authors mention the use of prompts to generate content, it would be worth adding at least one specific example of a prompt used in the creation of a lesson or episode. This would increase the transparency of the methodology and give the reader better insight into the process of using artificial intelligence in an educational context.
Authors reply: The methodology section has been updated to include a specific example of a prompt used in generating one of the podcast episodes. This addition increases transparency regarding how the AI tool was guided and provides clearer insight into the process of producing tailored educational content through NotebookLM.

Comment 13: The text also lacks key information about the podcasts themselves — their duration, topics, and the number of research articles on which they were based. It would be useful to present this data in a table, along with a brief description of each episode.
Authors reply: A table has been include that includes the description of each episode, including duration, topics, and the number of research articles on which they were based

Comment 14: The Data Collection section indicates the time period for the study, but the time gap between the end of classes (assumed by May) and the focus groups (in July) suggests that there was a potential loss of engagement and freshness of experience among students. The authors should explain the reasons for postponing the focus groups and consider the possible consequences of such a time gap on the validity and reliability of the data.
 It would also be useful to explain why a survey was not used as an additional or alternative method of data collection immediately after the podcast experience. Such an approach could have provided more current impressions and quantitative context with the qualitative insights of the focus groups.
The data collection process is clearly described, but there is a lack of support in the form of scientific references that would point to methodological sources or similar approaches in the literature.
Authors reply: The timing of the focus group has been amended, explaining that it was conducted after the unit had concluded and marks were released to ensure that students did not feel obliged to participate or perceive any assessment-related pressure. Also I have acknowledged the potential impact of this time gap on recall and note this in the revised text. Additionally, I have explained why a survey was not used, given the small cohort and the study’s practitioner inquiry focus on depth rather than breadth. Relevant methodological references have been added to strengthen and support these decisions.

Comment 15:The Data Analysis section states that the analysis was conducted thematically according to the Braun & Clarke six-step approach, but the authors did not specify the specific steps that this approach involves. They should at least be briefly stated and explained as they were applied in this study — for example, how the codes were developed, how they were combined into themes, and how the themes were further interpreted in the context of the research questions.
Authors reply: The Data Analysis section has been revised to outline how each stage of Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step approach was applied in this study. We now clarify how familiarisation occurred, how initial deductive and inductive codes were generated, how themes were developed, reviewed, and defined across the two datasets, and how these themes were interpreted in relation to the research questions and practitioner inquiry framework. 

Comment 16: The number of participants (two educators and several students) is not sufficient to draw scientifically relevant conclusions. This sample should be further justified or supplemented with future quantitative research — for example, a survey of a larger number of students and in different teaching contexts.
Authors reply: A justification  has been added in the methodology section, under the 2.1 heading, linking the justification with the framework.

Comment 17: The results should primarily be more clearly linked to the themes that emerged from the coding process, but this link is not sufficiently visible in the text. Instead of a structured presentation of thematic analysis, the authors mainly cite individual student comments on the usefulness and impressions of the podcast sound, which reduces the analytical depth of the results. A partial comparison with recent literature is useful, but the discussion is generally too brief and superficial. A deeper connection of the findings with the theoretical framework and previous research is missing, as well as critical reflection on the implications of the findings.
Authors reply:

Comment 19a:The part referring to UNESCO insights and similar sources would be more appropriate to move to the introductory part, where it could serve as a justification and motivation for the research. Also, an expanded literature review is needed to provide a better theoretical basis and show how this study fits into existing knowledge.
Authors reply: A section in the introduction has been added entitled '1.4 Policy and strategic framework for AI in education' which sevrves as a motivation and links the transparency of the educator.  

Comment 19b:In the results section, the authors list three main themes, but it would be useful to include a visual representation (e.g., a diagram or table) to make the coding process and the relationships between themes clearer.
Author reply: Figure 1 has been included for a visual representation of the coding process.

Comment 20: The conclusion is too short and does not clearly highlight the scientific contribution of the paper. It should emphasize what the study specifically adds to existing research on AI-generated podcasts and learning.
Author reply: This has been successfully added.

Comment 21: Finally, the bibliography is insufficient for an article of this level. It is necessary to include a larger number of recent and relevant sources. The topic has significant potential and innovation, but for the paper to be suitable for publication in a scientific journal, the methodological and theoretical framework needs to be significantly expanded and deepened.
Author reply: Though the multiple amendments have bee added, hence the bibliography has been significantly expanded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVISED REVIEW - INCLUDING ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Dear authors,
I thank you for submitting a new version of the paper. I am extremely pleased to see that the manuscript has been significantly improved compared to the previous version and now corresponds to the quality level of the journal to which it was submitted.
The title has been successfully changed in accordance with the recommendations, and the abstract is now clearer and more informative. It is positive that you have clearly stated the research questions, and the conclusions have been formulated more carefully, with a reduced emphasis on shortcomings. It is clearly indicated that this is a pilot study, but at the same time its value and contribution are highlighted.
The introduction is very well developed and previous contradictions have been removed, for example, in the part related to inclusivity and accessibility. The research questions in this version are more clearly formulated, numbered and consistently linked to the introduction and methodology. The first question focuses on the student perspective, and the second on the educator perspective, which is methodologically justified.
The methodological part of the paper provides a significantly greater contribution than in the previous version. Since the paper is positioned as a practitioner inquiry, it is clearly explained why a small sample was used, with relevant literature added to support it. Thus, the design of the study is harmonized with the methodological approach and scientifically based.
I especially emphasize the importance of listing the AI-generated podcasts, including their duration, episode topics, and brief descriptions. This element significantly contributes to the replicability of the research and the clarity of the process - which is extremely important in the context of the practitioner inquiry approach aimed at the development of good practices. Prompts have also been added, which is methodologically useful and technically well executed.
In the thematic analysis part, you have clearly presented all six steps of the Braun & Clarke methodology, whereby the initial codes, clusters and themes are well connected and clearly presented. The discussion has been raised to a higher level: although it still includes a large number of student comments, it is now clearly structured, visually presented and linked to the existing literature. If you have the space and time available, I recommend a stronger theoretical positioning of certain topics through concepts such as cognitive load or self-regulation, but even without that, the work in the current version meets the requirements for publication.
The UNESCO framework in the introduction is suitably reframed and contributes to the wider context and motivation of the research. The conclusion is clear, it positions the work well in the existing literature and highlights the effects of the study. The bibliography is expanded, relevant and includes the fields of higher education, AI and podcasts, which I rate as very positive.
Perhaps a few more theoretical references could be added to further strengthen the theoretical framework, but the current version meets the standards I stated in the previous review.
Before handing in the final version, please carefully review the text once again, especially the parts where underlining is visible, so that no markings from the editing phase remain.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION FOR SPECIAL ISSUE CONTEXT
Considering the thematic framework of the special issue of Technology Enhanced Education: Supporting Learner Engagement in Technology-Rich Environments, I suggest another targeted refinement that could further enrich the manuscript, and does not require a major reconstruction of the text: the temporary novelty effect has not been conceptually addressed
The paper rightly points out that the novelty factor of the AI-podcast is strongly motivating, but this phenomenon is not theoretically problematized. In the literature on technology-enhanced teaching, the novelty effect is considered an important danger – initial enthusiasm may wane over time, which may lead the editor to question whether the results would remain as pronounced after a longer period of use.
In the context of the theme issue, a brief reflection on how the sustainability of engagement – ​​especially in digital, technology-rich environments – may change after the novelty wears off would further strengthen the theoretical contribution. In this way, the work would more strongly address the issue of long-term support for student engagement, which is at the heart of this Special Issue.