From Intimidation to Innovation: Cross-Continental Multiple Case Studies on How to Harness AI to Elevate Engagement, Comprehension, and Retention

Many thanks again for your helpful suggestions!

Response to Reviewer 1

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below your comments as well as our detailed responses below in italics and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted manuscript (the line numbering below applies when “simple markup” is visible under “track changes”).

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research design is generally solid and well planned. However, some parts of the methodology section could be clearer. It would be helpful to explain why certain sample sizes were used and how participants were selected.

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we have detailed how the student samples were obtained in lines 207-210.

Including a short note about ethical approvals and consent procedures from each university would improve transparency.

Thanks – agreed; we’ve included this in lines 210-212.

The description of the thematic analysis could also be expanded—for example, how the codes were created and whether more than one person checked the results.

Good point – in response, we have added more detail to address this in lines 197-202.

It would also be useful to discuss the study’s limitations more openly, such as the low number of post-survey responses or differences between institutions

Acknowledged and agreed. Section 4.3 was renamed to “Study limitations and suggestions for follow-up research”, and lines 821-835 were added to address the study’s limitations.

The role of instructors in helping students with both the technical and creative sides of the project could be described in more detail, especially since some students may not be familiar with these tools.

Also agreed, we have added more detail about this in section 2.1 (Settings and Procedure), in particular in lines 225-244,

Lastly, while the student-created comics are a strong part of the project, it’s not clear how they were assessed. More information about the grading criteria or learning goals would make this part stronger.

Thanks – we have added more detail to address this on lines 245-258.

Many thanks again for your helpful suggestions!

Response to Reviewer 1

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below your comments as well as our detailed responses below in italics and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted manuscript (the line numbering below applies when “simple markup” is visible under “track changes”).

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research design is generally solid and well planned. However, some parts of the methodology section could be clearer. It would be helpful to explain why certain sample sizes were used and how participants were selected.

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we have detailed how the student samples were obtained in lines 207-210.

Including a short note about ethical approvals and consent procedures from each university would improve transparency.

Thanks – agreed; we’ve included this in lines 210-212.

The description of the thematic analysis could also be expanded—for example, how the codes were created and whether more than one person checked the results.

Good point – in response, we have added more detail to address this in lines 197-202.

It would also be useful to discuss the study’s limitations more openly, such as the low number of post-survey responses or differences between institutions

Acknowledged and agreed. Section 4.3 was renamed to “Study limitations and suggestions for follow-up research”, and lines 821-835 were added to address the study’s limitations.

The role of instructors in helping students with both the technical and creative sides of the project could be described in more detail, especially since some students may not be familiar with these tools.

Also agreed, we have added more detail about this in section 2.1 (Settings and Procedure), in particular in lines 225-244,

Lastly, while the student-created comics are a strong part of the project, it’s not clear how they were assessed. More information about the grading criteria or learning goals would make this part stronger.

Thanks – we have added more detail to address this on lines 245-258.

Response to Reviewer 2

1. Summary

Many thanks for your comments and annotations and suggestions in our manuscript. We have considered all of these, updated the manuscript accordingly, and provide below an outline of your comments alongside our responses in italics.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting article.
The article is intended as a new empirical verification that continues studies related to the intelligent use of GenAI with university students, and its purpose is to "teach" students how to properly use this new tool.
The article itself is not original, although it is engaging, and reading it will undoubtedly contribute to more and more academics joining this new line of participatory research.

Thank you for this feedback. We have, accordingly, revised the settings and procedure section (section 2.1).

Response 2 also included a PDF of suggested edits. We are grateful for this feedback and have addressed the points as follows:

i.       Reference added to line 33, 43, 46, 48, 56, 58

ii.      A definition of GenAI add on line 63/64.

iii.    Clarification of only ChatGPT being in use in 2022 on lines 73-74.

iv.    Reference added to line 79.

v.      Reference added to line 80.

vi.    All typos fixed in the manuscript.

vii.   Research question revised on line 146-7.

viii. Wrong order of “innovation” vs “intimidation” fixed on lines 166-7.

ix.    Content moved from Results to Materials and Methods section.

x.      The Discussion section was reworded to soften the tone and highlighting the contribution to empirical research versus a finding.

xi.    References listed above added to the reference list.