Enhancing IEP Design in Inclusive Primary Settings Through ChatGPT: A Mixed-Methods Study with Special Educators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The content is succinctly described and well contextualized within both the existing theoretical framework and relevant empirical research. The research design and questions are articulated. The methodology is well-described. The discussion presents a balanced interpretation of the findings and provides a compelling narrative that ties back to the original research questions.

Below you will find some of my suggestions.

There are several instances throughout the manuscript where numerous in-text citations are grouped within parentheses, which affects readability. For example, lines 31–34, 40–44, and 45–47.

Tables: Please format the tables according to the journal’s guidelines.

References: Kindly ensure that all references are formatted according to the journal's referencing style.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and encouraging feedback, as well as for the constructive suggestions provided. In response to the comments:

• We have revised sections where numerous in-text citations were grouped within parentheses, ensuring improved clarity and readability.
• All tables have been reformatted in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.
• The reference list has been carefully checked and fully reformatted to meet the journal’s referencing style.

All changes are clearly highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript to facilitate your review.

We truly appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading of the manuscript and believe these revisions have further strengthened the paper.

With kind regards

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic, the integration of ChatGPT into the design of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for students with learning disabilities in inclusive primary classrooms. The subject is highly relevant to both special education and the broader discourse on AI in education. 
These are my comments: 
The study’s extremely small sample size makes the use of inferential statistics inappropriate, as the limited number of participants does not provide sufficient statistical power to support such analyses. Consequently, the “mixed-methods” designation is somewhat misleading, given that the quantitative component cannot yield generalizable findings. To address this, the paper should be reframed as a qualitative dominant study with descriptive quantitative support, presenting the R-GORI scores in terms of means, ranges, and illustrative examples rather than using t-tests or regressions. It should also be made clear that the findings are context-specific and not intended to be generalized beyond the study setting.
The abstract, aims, and discussion sections should be revised to reflect a more qualitative orientation, aligning them with the study’s actual strengths and methodological appropriateness. In the abstract, the focus should shift from highlighting statistical comparisons to emphasizing the exploratory nature of the work, the rich thematic insights from the interviews, and the context-specific observations. The stated aims should be reframed to prioritize understanding teacher perceptions, experiences, and practical considerations in using ChatGPT for IEP development, with the quantitative data presented only as descriptive support. In the discussion, the interpretation should center on qualitative themes and their implications, avoiding strong generalizations from the limited quantitative results, and positioning the findings as preliminary, illustrative contributions to guide future, larger-scale research.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We would like to sincerely thank you for your constructive and detailed feedback, which has greatly improved the clarity, methodological alignment, and overall quality of the manuscript.

All the suggested revisions have been implemented and are highlighted in yellow in the revised document for your convenience. Specifically:

• The study has been reframed throughout as qualitative-dominant with quantitative support in line with your recommendation.
• The abstract, aims, and discussion have been revised to emphasize the exploratory and context-specific nature of the work, foregrounding teacher perceptions, experiences, and practical considerations, with the quantitative findings serving as supplementary data.
• The discussion now centers on qualitative themes and their implications, avoiding any language suggesting statistical generalization. The preliminary nature of the findings and their context-bound character are clearly stated.
• We have retained the term mixed methods only in the title; however, this is not misleading, as the approach is clearly explained from the abstract onwards, making explicit the qualitative dominance and the complementary, supportive role of the quantitative component.

While we fully acknowledge the limitations imposed by the small sample size, we believe the chosen methodological model—integrating qualitative depth with targeted quantitative insights—offers a valuable framework for exploring emerging educational practices such as AI-assisted IEP development. This approach not only provides rich thematic evidence but also captures indicative patterns that can guide future, larger-scale investigations.

We are grateful for your insightful comments, which have helped us refine the manuscript so that it more accurately reflects its methodological strengths and contributions to both AI in education and inclusive pedagogy.

With kind regards

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is now presented clearly and appropriately, including the data analysis method. I have no additional comments.
Good luck