Transforming Physics Teacher Training Through ChatGPT: A Study on Usability and Impact
, Leonor Sanchez-Alvarado 1, Bryan Valarezo-Chamba 1 and Erick Lamilla-Rubio 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
- In line 26, the expression ‘various fields’ is used. please specify these fields.
- In lines 35-36 you have made a direct transition to physics education. there is a contextual problem with the previous section.
- There are also contextual problems between the 2nd and 3rd paragraph.
- I suggest that you make a transition by establishing a relationship between physics education and a productive artificial intelligence tool.
- what is the problem of this research? why did you need to integrate chatGPT into physics education. what gap in the literature do you plan to fill with this integration?
- What is the main purpose of your research? You stated that it will contribute to three fields, but what is the main purpose?
- the introduction should be restructured. while restructuring, you should eliminate contextual problems. You can emphasise the problems encountered in physics education and mention the advantages of productive artificial intelligence tools to these problems. however, in this form, there is no problem situation as to why the research was conducted.
- Why do you define ChatGPT in the method section. In the method section, you need to explain the method used to achieve the purpose of your research. If you need to define chatgpt, you should specify it in the introduction section.
- You should state your method by associating it with your research aim.
- There is no information about the validity and reliability of the scales you use. who developed these scales?
- there is not enough information about the process of analysing the data. i also suggest that the findings should be tabulated.
- the presentation of the discussion and conclusion section is inadequate. in general, not enough current studies have been utilised.
the article is inadequately structured despite the fact that it focuses on a current study topic by focusing on the integration of the productive artificial intelligence tool into physics education. the problem situation is very inadequate. the way the findings are presented is not sufficient. i suggest updating by taking these suggestions into consideration.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageQuality of English Language is sufficient.
Author Response
Point 1: In line 26, the expression ‘various fields’ is used. Please specify these fields.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The authors consider that it is relevant to mention these parameters of the simulation, consequently, the following text is added in the revised manuscript:
“The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to significant transformations in various fields including healthcare, where AI has enabled breakthroughs in diagnostics and personalized treatments [1]. In finance, AI has powered advanced risk analysis, fraud detection, and algorithmic trading [2,3]. In the transportation and logistics industries, AI has facilitated the development of autonomous vehicles and intelligent traffic management systems [4]. In education, adaptive learning platforms and AI-enhanced pedagogical models are reshaping teaching and learning processes[5,6,7]. These examples highlight the broad and transformative impact of AI on modern society.”
The following references were added in the revised manuscript:
[1] Parekh, A. D. E., Shaikh, O. A., Manan, S., & Al Hasibuzzaman, M. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) in personalized medicine: AI-generated personalized therapy regimens based on genetic and medical history. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 85(11), 5831-5833.
[2] Cao, L. (2022). Ai in finance: challenges, techniques, and opportunities. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55(3), 1-38.
[3] Challoumis, C. (2024, November). the landscape of AI in Finance. In XVII International Scientific Conference (pp. 109-144).
[4] Garikapati, D., & Shetiya, S. S. (2024). Autonomous vehicles: Evolution of artificial intelligence and the current industry landscape. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 8(4), 42.
[5] Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., ... & Li, Y. (2021). A Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity, 2021(1), 8812542.
[6] Tahiru, F. (2021). AI in education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cases on Information Technology (JCIT), 23(1), 1-20.
[7] Yim, I. H. Y., & Su, J. (2025). Artificial intelligence (AI) learning tools in K-12 education: A scoping review. Journal of Computers in Education, 12(1), 93-131.
Point 2: In lines 35-36 you have made a direct transition to physics education. is a contextual problem with the previous section.
- There are also contextual problems between the and paragraph.
- I suggest that you make a transition by establishing a relationship between physics education and a productive artificial intelligence tool.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The authors consider that it is relevant to to introduce a connecting paragraph, consequently, the following text is added in the revised manuscript:
“Among the cutting-edge tools emerging in this domain, ChatGPT has garnered attention for its potential to support and personalize learning experiences [8].
This generative AI tool, developed by OpenAI, utilizes natural language processing (NLP) techniques to generate human-like text and adapt to diverse educational contexts. It offers educators innovative strategies to create tailored content, guide student inquiry, and foster interactive and reflective learning environments [9,10]
Given these capabilities, a particularly relevant application of ChatGPT and similar tools lies in physics education, a field where abstract reasoning and conceptual clarity are essential, yet often difficult to achieve through traditional methods[11] Exploring how AI can assist in overcoming persistent pedagogical challenges in physics provides a compelling avenue for educational innovation.”
The following references were added in the revised manuscript:
[8] Schiff, D. (2022). Education for AI, not AI for education: The role of education and ethics in national AI policy strategies. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(3), 527-563.
[9] Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022). State of the art and practice in AI in education. European journal of education, 57(4), 542-570.
[10] Borenstein, J., & Howard, A. (2021). Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. AI and Ethics, 1(1), 61-65.
[11] Liang, Y., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Wang, F. L. (2023). Exploring the potential of using ChatGPT in physics education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 52.
Point 3: - what is the problem of this research? did you need to integrate chatGPT into physics education gap in the literature do you plan to fill with this integration?
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The central problem addressed by this research is the limited pedagogical preparedness of pre-service physics teachers to effectively integrate AI tools such as ChatGPT into the design of educational activities, particularly those involving gamification or playful learning strategies. While existing studies highlight the potential of ChatGPT for personalized and creative instructional design, there is a significant gap in digital literacy and critical engagement with such tools among future educators. This study seeks to explore how ChatGPT can support the development of pedagogical competencies related to the creation of ludic activities, while also examining the initial perceptions and knowledge of pre-service teachers regarding both gamification and AI-assisted teaching design.
The authors consider that it is relevant to to introduce a new paragraph, consequently, the following text is added in the revised manuscript:
“Recent educational research has emphasized the potential of ChatGPT to support personalized and engaging instructional design [12]. However, several studies have reported that pre-service teachers often possess limited prior knowledge about how to use this tool pedagogically. In this sense, research in primary education [13, 14] has revealed that, despite the widespread media coverage of ChatGPT, many educators are unaware of functional and potential as an educational tool. These studies reveal that initial perceptions overestimated ChatGPT’s ability to autonomously generate lesson plans [15]. After a guided use in a correct and structured manner, the participating teachers were able to explore the advantages and disadvantages of ChatGPT, finding the organization of ideas useful but under review and adjustment by an expert teacher [16].”
The following references were added in the revised manuscript:
[12] Mai, D. T. T., Da, C. V., & Hanh, N. V. (2024, February). The use of ChatGPT in teaching and learning: a systematic review through SWOT analysis approach. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 9, p. 1328769). Frontiers Media SA.
[13] Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. Journal of science education and technology, 32(3), 444-452.
[14] Liang, Y., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Wang, F. L. (2023). Exploring the potential of using ChatGPT in physics education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 52.
[15] Kalenda, P. J., Rath, L., Abugasea Heidt, M., & Wright, A. (2025). Pre-service Teacher Perceptions of ChatGPT for Lesson Plan Generation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 53(3), 219-241.
[16] Orellana, J. S., Cordero, C. A., & Espinoza, J. C. (2025). Validación del cuestionario para docentes: Percepción sobre el uso de ChatGPT en la educación superior. Revista Andina de Educación, 8(1), 000816-000816.
Point 4: - What is the main purpose of your research?
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The authors consider that it is important to highlight the contribution of the paper, which is the following:
This study contributes to the growing body of research on AI-assisted pedagogy by examining how ChatGPT can support the development of playful learning activities in the context of pre-service physics teacher education. Specifically, it investigates the influence of ChatGPT on pedagogical design by assessing pre-service teachers’ prior knowledge and their perceptions after engaging with the tool. The contribution lies in providing empirical evidence on the perceived usefulness, difficulty, satisfaction, impact, and future potential of ChatGPT in supporting ludic instructional design, thus offering practical insights for integrating generative AI tools into teacher training programs.
The following text is added in the revised manuscript:
“This paper presents the following main contributions: (1) the exploration of ChatGPT as a tool for designing playful learning activities tailored to physics teacher education, (2) the identification of pre-service teachers’ initial knowledge and perceptions regarding ludic pedagogical design prior to engaging with generative AI, and (3) the empirical assessment of ChatGPT’s perceived usefulness, difficulty, satisfaction, impact, and future potential, offering practical insights for the integration of AI-driven tools into teacher training curricula.”
Point 5: - the presentation of the discussion and conclusion section is inadequate. , not enough current studies have been utilised.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The authors have improved the discussion and conclusions section and added the following paragraphs to complement the content:
We appreciate your valuable and insightful comments, which greatly helped us to further improve the quality of this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUp to a certain point, around page 7, the text is good, well written, and the proposal is clear. However, I think the authors basically just quoted the percentages on the Likert scale, and did not provide an overview of the results. For example, they need to emphasize the age range of these 24 interviewees, and from there show the influence of ChatGPT on their future actions. I think the authors need to improve the results a little, include a little more statistics and not just quote the percentages! I believe the authors have data to improve the "Results" item and consequently have more arguments for the conclusions. Note that as it is, I do not believe there is anything new enough to be published. In other words, it just looks like a "report".
Also, a few things that need to be fixed:
- There are some citation errors in the text, for example in lines 171 and 172 there is: ... According to Campo-Arias- Oviedo Campo-Arias and Oviedo (2008), an acceptable McDonald’s Omega ...
- Figure 1 is of poor quality, please improve it. I also suggest presenting it in English;
- at the beginning of line 205 it says: "inally, Question 4 examined ...", correct it!
- Note that in item 3.1 the authors discuss the results arising from the answered questions, but these were not previously detailed, making understanding a little confusing, I suggest either describing them previously, or placing them in an appendix at the end of the text;
- in the pdf I received, on line 265 it says "and 13 %ıExtremelyinterested, whileonly13 % showed"; I think there are typing problems here.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNothing!
Author Response
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The authors have carefully addressed each of the observations as follows:
- We corrected all the typographical errors mentioned, including the citation issue in lines 171–172, the typographical mistake in line 205 ("Finally"), and the encoding issue in line 265.
- In response to the suggestion regarding Figure 1, we replaced the low-quality image with a new table (now Table 1) presenting the pre- and post-intervention survey questions in English, with clearer formatting and improved structure for better readability. Table 1 is presented as follows:
- As recommended, we enhanced the interpretation of the results in Section 3 by adding a new paragraph that synthesizes the findings and connects them to participants’ profiles, including their age range and future intentions related to ChatGPT integration in their teaching practice.
- Additionally, to improve clarity and coherence, we now include all survey questions in an appendix at the end of the manuscript, facilitating the understanding of the analysis provided in Section 3.1.
We appreciate your valuable and insightful comments, which greatly helped us to further improve the quality of this manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The authors need to revise the wording of the theoretical introduction. It would be necessary to expand on previous studies that have been conducted on the use of AI in aspects related to the study, highlighting more specifically examples of interventions.
- Section 2.1 is best interpreted as a theoretical review of the AI tool, so it would be advisable to write it in the introduction section.
- Reference should be made to previous studies from which the questionnaires used have been extracted.
- The questionnaire should be added as an annex.
- Table 1, referring to the questionnaires, should be placed in the previous section, when both questionnaires are described. In this section, there is a redundancy of information about the questionnaires.
- A more detailed description and explanation of the intervention is needed.
- In the results section, it is a priority to have tables and/or graphs that simplify the reading of the results. Therefore, the authors should create them in a way that groups the results for a comprehensible reading.
- The result of The McDonald's Omega coefficient should be described in the methodology section, when it is mentioned that this statistic is applied, which effectively allows validating the questionnaire.
- The authors should discuss more results obtained in the discussion.
- The conclusions section should not be the same as the results section. The authors should only reflect the most relevant findings of the study, and be much briefer.
Author Response
Point 1: The authors need to revise the wording of the theoretical introduction. It would be necessary to expand on previous studies that have been conducted on the use of AI in aspects related to the study, highlighting more specifically examples of interventions.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks.The authors have incorporated a broader review of previous studies focusing on the use of AI in educational contexts, specifically highlighting concrete examples of interventions related to the study topic. Consequently, the following text is added in the revised manuscript:
“The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to significant transformations in various fields including healthcare, where AI has enabled breakthroughs in diagnostics and personalized treatments [1]. In finance, AI has powered advanced risk analysis, fraud detection, and algorithmic trading [2,3]. In the transportation and logistics industries, AI has facilitated the development of autonomous vehicles and intelligent traffic management systems [4]. In education, adaptive learning platforms and AI-enhanced pedagogical models are reshaping teaching and learning processes[5,6,7]. These examples highlight the broad and transformative impact of AI on modern society.”
The following references were added in the revised manuscript:
[1] Parekh, A. D. E., Shaikh, O. A., Manan, S., & Al Hasibuzzaman, M. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) in personalized medicine: AI-generated personalized therapy regimens based on genetic and medical history. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 85(11), 5831-5833.
[2] Cao, L. (2022). Ai in finance: challenges, techniques, and opportunities. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55(3), 1-38.
[3] Challoumis, C. (2024, November). the landscape of AI in Finance. In XVII International Scientific Conference (pp. 109-144).
[4] Garikapati, D., & Shetiya, S. S. (2024). Autonomous vehicles: Evolution of artificial intelligence and the current industry landscape. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 8(4), 42.
[5] Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., ... & Li, Y. (2021). A Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity, 2021(1), 8812542.
[6] Tahiru, F. (2021). AI in education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cases on Information Technology (JCIT), 23(1), 1-20.
[7] Yim, I. H. Y., & Su, J. (2025). Artificial intelligence (AI) learning tools in K-12 education: A scoping review. Journal of Computers in Education, 12(1), 93-131.
Point 2: Section 2.1 is best interpreted as a theoretical review of the AI tool, so it would be advisable to write it in the introduction section.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The content of Section 2.1, which initially provided a theoretical overview of the AI tool, has been successfully relocated to the introduction section to ensure a more coherent structure and smoother progression of ideas.
Point 3: Reference should be made to previous studies from which the questionnaires used have been extracted.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. References to previous studies from which the questionnaires were adapted have been properly included. We now clearly acknowledge the sources and provide citations to support the origin and validity of the instruments used.
Point 4: The questionnaire should be added as an annex.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. References to previous studies from which the questionnaires were adapted have been properly included. The complete questionnaire has been added as an annex to the manuscript, ensuring transparency and allowing readers to fully access the evaluation instruments employed in the study.
Point 5: Table 1, referring to the questionnaires, should be placed in the previous section, when both questionnaires are described. In this section, there is a redundancy of information about the questionnaires.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. References to previous studies from which the questionnaires were adapted have been properly included. In response to the suggestion regarding Figure 1, we replaced the low-quality image with a new table (now Table 1) presenting the pre- and post-intervention survey questions in English, with clearer formatting and improved structure for better readability. Table 1 is presented as follows:
Point 6: A more detailed description and explanation of the intervention is needed.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. References to previous studies from which the questionnaires were adapted have been properly included. A more detailed description and thorough explanation of the intervention have been incorporated into the methodology section, providing readers with a clear understanding of the procedures, duration, and pedagogical strategies involved. Consequently, the following text is added in the revised manuscript:
“Regarding the perception of students in training for Physics education, the following dimensions were analyzed: Familiarity with ChatGPT in the design of recreational activities (I-D1), Knowledge of the use of ChatGPT in the design of recreational activities (I-D2), Attitudes about the use of ChatGPT in the design of recreational activities (I-D3), Knowledge of the impact of ChatGPT on the design of recreational activities (I-D4), and Future applications of ChatGPT in the classroom (I-D5). The Likert-type scale allowed for an examination of the students’ perspectives regarding ChatGPT as a tool within the Physics teaching-learning process. Although the instruments used had differences in format, their underlying structure remained the same. For the purposes of this article, a scale was utilized that pluralizes and captures a wide range of students' perceptions.
In the previous graph, it is evident that the entry survey results reveal a varied perception among students. In dimension I-D1, focused on familiarity with ChatGPT, there is a high concentration of negative and very negative responses, particularly regarding knowledge of specific capabilities (I-Q2), exploration of the tool (I-Q3), and ChatGPT’s ability to adapt recreational activities to specific Physics topics (I-Q4). In the latter, 50% of students responded very negatively, indicating that perceptions of ChatGPT usage were unfavorable, likely due to a lack of prior knowledge about the tool. This trend suggests that most students began with a very low initial familiarity with ChatGPT in educational playful contexts.
Nevertheless, in dimension I-D2, which addresses knowledge of ChatGPT’s application in the design of recreational activities, a slight shift in perception is observed, with a greater presence of neutral and some positive responses. This is particularly evident regarding ChatGPT’s assistance in facilitating classroom experimentation activities (I-Q6) and its role in promoting critical thinking in Physics (I-Q8), where a significant change toward favorable perceptions is recorded, reflecting an emerging recognition of the educational possibilities of the tool.
Moving to dimension I-D3, focused on students’ attitudes towards the use of ChatGPT, a noticeable positive shift is seen, with the majority of responses reflecting positive and very positive attitudes, exceeding 50%. This is particularly evident in the use of ChatGPT to structure playful dynamics (I-Q10), which contributes to the enrichment and characterization of Physics classes (I-Q12). This indicates a growing willingness not only to accept but also to actively integrate the tool into their future teaching practices.
Similarly, in dimension I-D4, which focuses on ChatGPT’s impact on the design of recreational activities, the trend is predominantly positive and very positive. Students recognize ChatGPT’s benefits in fostering active classroom participation (I-Q14). Moreover, students demonstrate awareness of the potential challenges (I-Q15) and their impact on motivation to learn Physics (I-Q16), revealing a mature and critical perception of the tool.
Finally, in dimension I-D5, which explores future applications of ChatGPT in the classroom, 80% of students show positive and very positive perceptions. A strong attitude of interest (I-Q17) is evident, along with a vision of transforming Physics education through a game-based learning approach (I-Q20).”
“Given the relevance and importance of using ChatGPT, the study proceeded to measure students' perceptions regarding the Perceived usefulness of ChatGPT in the design of leisure activities (O-D1), Difficulty of using ChatGPT in the design of recreational activities (O-D2), Satisfaction with the use of ChatGPT in the design of recreational activities (O-D3), Impact of ChatGPT on the design of recreational activities (O-D4), and ChatGPT future usage outlook (O-D5). Similarly, the same analysis approach was applied, using a Likert scale for the questions in each dimension.
Based on the previous graph, at a macro level, it is evident that more than 90% of the responses to the exit survey reflect a very positive attitude across the dimensions assessed. Specifically, for dimension O-D1, focused on the perceived usefulness of ChatGPT in designing recreational activities, a high concentration of positive and very positive responses is observed, especially in the improvement of the quality of playful activities designed for teaching Physics (O-Q1), with 67% very positive responses, and in the adaptation of activities to students’ learning levels (O-Q2), with 79% very positive responses. Regarding the personalization of activities (O-Q3) and the improvement in the teaching of complex concepts (O-Q4), favorable perception levels remain high, with 63% very positive responses. This suggests that, although the usefulness of ChatGPT is widely recognized, there is a small group that still expresses some reservations, particularly concerning ChatGPT’s usefulness in enhancing the quality and adaptation of activities.
On the other hand, in dimension O-D2, which addresses the difficulty of using ChatGPT, a slight dispersion of responses is observed, particularly in the technical perception of using ChatGPT (O-Q7). Here, a diversity of views among students is evident, which could be related to the age distribution of the sample. About 21% of students provided negative responses and 4% very negative responses, representing groups that perceive the methodical use of ChatGPT in the teaching-learning process as complex. However, 33% positive responses and 25% very positive responses correspond to the majority who did not find handling this tool difficult. Moreover, regarding the ease of use of the application (O-Q8), 71% of students indicated a very positive experience, confirming that, overall, the tool was accessible.
From dimension O-D3, centered on satisfaction with the use of ChatGPT, a significant shift in students' perception is noted, where most responses are concentrated at very positive levels. This is particularly reflected in the general satisfaction with the outcomes obtained (O-Q9) and the support to the teaching process (O-Q10), both reaching 71% very positive responses. Concerning time savings in preparing activities (O-Q11) and the overall satisfaction with the ChatGPT usage experience (O-Q12), very positive responses reach 83% and 75%, respectively, reflecting not only acceptance but also a high degree of satisfaction with ChatGPT’s role in their teaching practice within the educational environment.
Similarly, in dimension O-D4, focused on ChatGPT’s impact on the design of recreational activities, the trend remains markedly positive, with all questions exceeding 50% very positive responses. Students acknowledge the simplification of activity preparation and better time management (O-Q13), as well as the ability to offer clearer and more dynamic explanations of Physics concepts (O-Q14) and to personalize their classes (O-Q15). Although a 4% neutrality rate is identified in the evaluation of the teaching process through playful activities (O-Q16), the overall favorable perception predominates, demonstrating that students highly value ChatGPT’s impact on their educational practices.
Finally, in dimension O-D5, focusing on the future outlook of ChatGPT usage, 80% of students demonstrate positive and very positive perceptions across all questions, particularly highlighting the interest in continuing to use ChatGPT for new activities (O-Q17) and in further training in its use (O-Q19), as well as viewing ChatGPT as a key resource for future education (O-Q20), where 67% responded very positively. Thus, a strong attitude of interest and commitment to permanently integrating ChatGPT into Physics teaching is evident, projecting it as an essential resource for teacher training.”
Point 7: In the results section, it is a priority to have tables and/or graphs that simplify the reading of the results. Therefore, the authors should create them in a way that groups the results for a comprehensible reading.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. In the results section, new tables and graphs have been developed to synthesize and visually present the data. These visual aids group the results in a coherent and accessible manner, significantly enhancing the readability and interpretation of the findings.
Point 8: The result of The McDonald's Omega coefficient should be described in the methodology section when it is mentioned that this statistic is applied, which effectively allows validating the questionnaire.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. In the results section, new tables and graphs have been developed to synthesize and visually present the data. The calculation and significance of the McDonald's Omega coefficient have been added to the methodology section, immediately after mentioning its application. This ensures clarity regarding the instrument’s validation process. Consequently, the following text is added in the revised manuscript:
“In the context of the present study, two surveys (pre- and post-intervention) were administered to 24 students using instruments based on a five-point Likert scale, comprising five dimensions with four items each. To assess internal reliability, McDonald’s Omega coefficient was selected. This choice was grounded in the substantial advantages Omega offers over traditional coefficients such as Cronbach’s Alpha, particularly when applied to ordinal data and multidimensional structures. As noted by Domínguez-Lara and Merino-Soto (2015), Omega is better suited for Likert-type scales because it relies on polychoric correlations, thereby preserving the ordinal nature of the data. Additionally, Viladrich, Angulo-Brunet, and Doval (2017) emphasize that Omega does not require the stringent assumption of tau-equivalence among items, thus enabling a more accurate estimation of reliability—an aspect of particular importance when instruments encompass multiple constructs or dimensions. Moreover, as highlighted by Frías-Navarro (2020) and Albuquerque-Araújo et al. (2024), Omega facilitates the computation of reliability both globally and for each individual dimension, providing a more nuanced and robust evaluation of the psychometric properties of questionnaires administered in educational contexts. Accordingly, the adoption of McDonald’s Omega coefficient in this research ensures a more appropriate, sensitive, and rigorous assessment of the internal consistency of the instruments designed to measure students’ perceptions at the initial and final stages of the formative process.”
The following references were added in the revised manuscript:
[8] Domínguez-Lara, S., & Merino-Soto, C. (2015). El coeficiente Omega: un método alternativo para la estimación de la confiabilidad. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 13(2), 625–627. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/773/77349627039.pdf
[9] Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). Un viaje alrededor de alfa y omega para estimar la fiabilidad de consistencia interna. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 755–782. https://revistas.um.es/analesps/article/download/analesps.33.3.268401/215531
[10] Frías-Navarro, D. (2020). Apuntes de estimación de la fiabilidad de consistencia interna de cuestionarios. Universidad de Valencia. https://www.uv.es/friasnav/AlfaCronbach.pdf
[11] Albuquerque-Araújo, W., et al. (2024). Ventajas del uso del coeficiente de omega de McDonald frente al alfa de Cronbach. Nutrición Hospitalaria, 41(1), 30–35. https://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?pid=S0212-16112024000100030&script=sci_arttext
Point 9: The authors should discuss more results obtained in the discussion.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The discussion section has been enriched with a deeper analysis of the obtained results. The authors now provide a more critical interpretation, relating findings to previous literature and discussing their implications for future research and practice.
Point 10: The authors should discuss more results obtained in the discussion.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The conclusions section has been carefully rewritten to avoid repetition of the results. It now presents only the most significant findings in a brief, reflective, and impactful manner, highlighting the contributions of the study.
We appreciate your valuable and insightful comments, which greatly helped us to further improve the quality of this manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript deals with a very important topic with respect to the evolution of educational methods. In particular, it addresses the effects of the introduction of GPT as a tool for alternative teaching in Physics. In general, the subject matter is very important and can have scientific implications for the construction of new educational realities .However, a reorganisation of the material is necessary, especially from the point of view of data visualisation, which is not very comprehensible and unscientific.
Here are some pointers:
Line 30: Insert a reference for OpenAI.
Line 42: The concept is very important for modern education and needs to be better described. Also mention more recent references (within the last two three years). Later, when you return to this topic, I will mention a couple that I think are important.
Line 43: You rightly talk about the problem students have with abstract concepts and say that GPT helps to overcome this limitation. However GPT cannot create practical experiences but only theorise them. This needs to be emphasised. Line 111: give references for the physics studies you are talking about.
Line 115-117: references are also needed here. In particular, the most recent students on the use of the play dimension for learning science subjects are:
Jiang, X., Xu, J. & Xu, X. An overview of domestic and international applications of digital technology in teaching in vocational education: Systematic literature mapping. Educ Inf Technol 29, 16867–16899 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12528-y
Hyowon Hyun, Weon Sang Yoo, Yuhsuan Chen,vRetailing education as panaceas: Exploring the effects of knowledge transfer on organizational and employee outcomes,vJournal of Retailing and Consumer Services,Volume 84, 2025, 104259, ISSN 0969-6989,
Bile, A. Development of intellectual and scientific abilities through game-programming in Minecraft. Educ Inf Technol 27, 7241–7256 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10894-z
Lebedeva, M., Taranova, M. & Beketov, V. Assessment of academic achievements in m-learning. Educ Inf Technol 28, 5945–5965 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11423-8
It is important to define whether the introduction of GPT leads to increased levels of attentiveness in all age groups or only in some or with different effects.
Line 139: this is the number on which the study was conducted but then only 24 respond. Clarify this passage.
Figure 1: The resolution is too low and the fonts too small: nothing can be read.
Figure 2: This figure is useless.
Lines 213-215: Too long and confusing sentence.
The sum of the percentages is different from 100%, why? Some did not answer. This needs to be clarified.
Instead of presenting all these percentage numbers again, think about collecting the answers in the form of histograms: a quicker and more scientific visualisation.
Author Response
Point 1: Line 30: Insert a reference for OpenAI.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. A recent and appropriate reference for OpenAI has been added.
Point 2: Line 42: Better describe the concept for modern education and add recent references.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The description has been expanded and complemented with recent references from the past three years, as suggested.
Point 3: Line 43: Clarify GPT's role in theorizing versus creating practical experiences.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. We have highlighted that GPT primarily aids theorization and does not substitute practical experimentation.
Point 4: Line 111: Provide references for the mentioned physics studies.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. Relevant references have been added to support the studies discussed.
Point 5: Line 115–117: Add references related to play-based learning.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The suggested references (Jiang et al., Hyowon Hyun et al., Bile, and Lebedeva et al.) have been incorporated accordingly.
Point 6: Define whether GPT increases attentiveness across all age groups.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. This point has been clarified, noting that effects may vary depending on age groups.
Point 7: Line 139: Clarify participant numbers.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. We have explained that although the study involved more participants, only 24 completed the responses.
Point 8: Figure 1: Improve resolution and font size.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. Figure 1 has been updated with higher resolution and larger, more readable fonts.
Point 9: Figure 2: Evaluate its necessity.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. Following the Reviewer’s advice, Figure 2 has been removed.
Point 10: Lines 213–215: Sentence too long and confusing.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The sentence has been restructured for clarity and conciseness.
Point 11: Sum of percentages does not add to 100%; clarify.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The sentence has been restructured for clarity and conciseness. We have specified that missing answers account for the discrepancy.
Point 12: Suggest using histograms for result visualization.
The Authors’ Response:
-- The authors appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The results have been restructured into histograms for more effective and scientific visualization.
We appreciate your valuable and insightful comments, which greatly helped us to further improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I believe that your work will contribute to the literature.
Revisions have been made in accordance with the referee reports.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors were concerned and managed to develop the work after the questions were asked, from that point on, I now have a favorable opinion for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
thank you very much for the careful review and feedback on the manuscript.
The revisions and modifications performed on the manuscript are appropriate. No additional relevant modifications are required for acceptance of the manuscript.
Kind regards
