Integrating ChatGPT into the Design of 5E-Based Earth Science Lessons

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research gap that justify the significance of this study is well elaborated.

Literature review on the use of GenAI in education is recent and relevant to the scope of study.

The philosophy behind interpretive approach should be explained to provide clearer understanding in relevance to this study.

There is only one transcript for each of the 13 codes. More transcripts should be provided for each code to justify establishing the said codes.

Overall, this is an interesting study and is expected to benefit the field of GenAI in education.

 

Author Response

1. The research gap that justify the significance of this study is well elaborated

- We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognizing the clarity and significance of the research gap outlined in our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that the context and justification for our study were well-articulated. We believe that clearly identifying the research gap—particularly the underexplored area of pre-service teachers’ use of GenAI tools like ChatGPT in structured lesson design—strengthens the contribution of this work to the field of science education and educational technology.

2. Literature review on the use of GenAI in education is recent and relevant to the scope of study
- Thank you very much for your encouraging comment on the literature review. We carefully selected references with the intention of reflecting the most recent developments in the field. In particular, we made an effort to include studies published as recently as possible, prioritizing those from 2024 and 2025. We are grateful that the reviewer found this approach appropriate and relevant to the focus of our study. Your recognition strengthens our confidence in the contextual framing of the research.

3. The philosophy behind interpretive approach should be explained to provide clearer understanding in relevance to this study
- Thank you for this insightful suggestion. In response, we have revised the Research Design section (3.1) to include a brief but explicit explanation of the interpretive paradigm that underpins our qualitative case study. Specifically, we added two sentences that articulate how the interpretive approach views knowledge as socially constructed and meaning as co-constructed between the researcher and participants. These additions are grounded in Schwandt (2007), whose work provides a foundational understanding of interpretivism in qualitative research. We believe this clarification strengthens the philosophical coherence of our methodology and improves the transparency of our research orientation.

4.There is only one transcript for each of the 13 codes. More transcripts should be provided for each code to justify establishing the said codes.
- We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment regarding the limited number of transcript excerpts provided for each thematic code. We fully agree that including more than one example can enhance the credibility and depth of the analysis.

At the same time, we were mindful of the overall manuscript length, as presenting multiple transcript excerpts for all 13 codes would significantly increase the volume of the Results section beyond what is typical for similar studies in this journal. To address this, we have one more added additional examples for codes where the original excerpt alone may have appeared insufficient to support the thematic interpretation.

In these cases, we included one or more supplementary excerpts drawn from different participants and data sources (e.g., reflective journals or interviews) to better illustrate the consistency and recurrence of the theme. We believe this balanced approach maintains analytical transparency while ensuring the manuscript remains within a reasonable length.

5. Overall, this is an interesting study and is expected to benefit the field of GenAI in education.
- We sincerely thank the reviewer for the encouraging feedback. We are pleased to hear that the study was found to be interesting and valuable to the growing field of generative AI in education. Your positive evaluation affirms our belief that exploring how pre-service teachers interact with AI tools like ChatGPT in structured lesson design contexts can offer meaningful insights for both teacher education and future classroom applications. We are especially grateful for your constructive suggestions, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is worthy of publication with some minor improvements. It is very clear and certainly will help towards formulating the educational know-how of the AI-Aided teacher.

The authors are trying to fathom a very important, yet puzzling subject that will become central to the education science - use of GenAI by teachers, specifically in preparing 5E lesson plans. What was very interesting is to be able to get the raw opinions and experiences in real life application of GenAI.

The paper is very clear and certainly will help towards formulating the educational know-how of the AI-Aided teacher.

I would suggest some minor improvements.

The principles and general approach of the method of this research are described more than ones and could be shortened,

On the other hand, the details of application of the approach by teacher could certainly be elaborated upon.

Also more raw data, more teachers' own words and examples could be added, maybe even in more details.

The structure is clear but chapter 4 "results" could be improved - maybe less sub-chapters.

Another go at proofing would not hurt as some mistakes are still there (like  line 289 should begin with capital letter). 

I would suggest to the authors also to try to improve the Table 1 that is very interesting but maybe could be improved.

Author Response

1. The paper is worthy of publication with some minor improvements. It is very clear and certainly will help towards formulating the educational know-how of the AI-Aided teacher.
   - We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and encouraging evaluation of our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that the clarity and potential contribution of the paper were recognized, especially in relation to the growing field of AI-assisted teaching.

2. The authors are trying to fathom a very important, yet puzzling subject that will become central to the education science  use of GenAI by teachers, specifically in preparing 5E lesson plans. What was very interesting is to be able to get the raw opinions and experiences in real life application of GenAI.
   - Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment. We deeply appreciate your recognition of the importance and complexity of exploring how teachers engage with generative AI, particularly within structured lesson planning models like 5E. We are encouraged to hear that the inclusion of participants’ authentic voices and real-life experiences was found to be valuable. Capturing these grounded perspectives was central to our research aim, and your feedback affirms the relevance of this approach to current discussions in education science.

3. The paper is very clear and certainly will help towards formulating the educational know-how of the AI-Aided teacher. I would suggest some minor improvements.
   - Thank you for your encouraging feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the paper’s clarity and potential contribution to developing educational know-how for AI-aided teaching. We have addressed the suggested minor improvements throughout the revised manuscript.

4. The principles and general approach of the method of this research are described more than once and could be shortened.
   - Thank you for pointing this out. In response to your suggestion, we carefully reviewed the Methods section and streamlined overlapping descriptions of the research design, particularly those related to the interpretive framework and case study approach.
   Additionally, we clarified the philosophical foundation of the research by explicitly incorporating Schwandt’s (2007) interpretivist perspective, which emphasizes meaning-making as a socially and contextually situated process.
   We believe that this addition strengthens the methodological coherence of the study while the reduction of redundancies improves the overall clarity and focus of the section.
5. The details of application of the approach by teachers could certainly be elaborated upon.
   - We appreciate this thoughtful suggestion. In response, we have expanded the descriptions of how pre-service teachers applied ChatGPT throughout the lesson design process. Specifically, we added more raw data excerpts in the Results section to show how participants interpreted, adapted, and transformed AI suggestions in their instructional contexts.
6. Also more raw data, more teachers' own words and examples could be added, maybe even in more details.
   - Thank you for emphasizing the importance of authentic teacher voices. Following your recommendation, we added additional quotes from participants across all 13 thematic codes in the Results section. These additions include varied examples from T1 to T8 and illustrate their pedagogical reasoning in greater depth.
7. The structure is clear but chapter 4 ‘results’ could be improved – maybe less sub-chapters.
   - Thank you for this valuable input. While we retained the 5E-aligned subheadings to maintain consistency with the instructional model, we carefully reviewed the sub-sections to ensure they are concise and logically organized. Where possible, we merged or shortened descriptions of similar themes and removed redundancies to improve flow and readability.
8. Another go at proofing would not hurt as some mistakes are still there (like line 289 should begin with capital letter).
   - We appreciate your careful reading. We have conducted a thorough proofreading of the manuscript and corrected minor grammatical issues, including the capitalization error on line 289 and other formatting inconsistencies across the text.
9. I would suggest to the authors also to try to improve the Table 1 that is very interesting but maybe could be improved.
   - Thank you for the constructive suggestion. We have revised Table 1 to enhance its clarity and usefulness. The updated table now includes more representative excerpts from participants and clearly aligns each with the corresponding research question and 5E phase. We also adjusted column headings and formatting to improve readability and interpretive value.