“Is AI Inevitable?” Development of Attitudes and Practices of Czech Teachers Between 2023 and 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. add basic intro and gap that lead to this study in the abstract
2. add contributions of the study in intro section
3. Check the abbreviation of the Research objectives in page 2. its should be RO.
4. Add a summary table in the literature review section.
5. please recheck the heading numbering. 

Authors should justify and provide proper reasoning of following questions in paper:

1. Research Desgin diagram is missing
2. How questionnaire was created ?? how it was validated ??
3. Google forms are used to collect the data but which tools are used to analyse it ??
4. who analysis is validated ??
5. can this analysis is validated around the world ??

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

add basic intro and gap that lead to this study in the abstract

We thank both reviewers for their valuable and complementary suggestions regarding the abstract. In response, we have substantially revised and restructured the abstract. First, following Reviewer 1’s recommendation, we strengthened the introductory framing and explicitly articulated the research gap by highlighting the need to examine the transition from early exploratory use of generative AI to its normalization in educational practice. At the same time, in accordance with Reviewer 2’s suggestion, we reduced the emphasis on specific numerical results and detailed statistical reporting. Instead, the revised abstract now presents the findings at a more conceptual level, focusing on key trends and theoretical implications while encouraging readers to engage with the full analysis presented in the manuscript. We believe that this revised version balances both perspectives by clearly situating the study within the broader research context while maintaining readability and analytical focus.

add contributions of the study in intro section

Thank you for this important suggestion. We have revised the Introduction section to explicitly state the theoretical and empirical contributions of the study. The revised version now clarifies the comparative nature of the research (2023–2025), its contribution to understanding the normalization of generative AI in school practice, and its added value in linking attitudes, competencies, institutional support, and student misuse within one analytical framework.

Check the abbreviation of the Research objectives in page 2. its should be RO.

Thank you for your careful reading. In our study, we formulated explicit research questions rather than research objectives; therefore, the abbreviation RQ (Research Questions) was used intentionally and consistently throughout the manuscript.

Add a summary table in the literature review section.

Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We have added a summary table at the end of the Literature Review section that synthesizes the main research themes, representative studies, and identified research gaps. The table improves clarity and highlights how the present study builds upon and extends existing literature.

please recheck the heading numbering. 

Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully revised the manuscript to ensure consistent and hierarchical heading numbering in accordance with the journal’s formatting guidelines. All sections and subsections have now been properly structured and aligned with MDPI standards.

Authors should justify and provide proper reasoning of following questions in paper:

Research Desgin diagram is missing

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have added a research design diagram (Figure X) in the Methodology section. The figure visually summarizes the comparative framework (2023–2025), data collection process, analytical procedures, and alignment of thematic categories. This addition improves clarity and transparency of the research procedure.

How questionnaire was created ?? how it was validated ??

Thank you for this important methodological comment. We have expanded the description of the questionnaire development process. The revised manuscript now clarifies the theoretical grounding of the instrument, the adaptation of items from the 2023 study, the expert content validation procedure, the pilot testing process, and internal consistency reliability assessment using Cronbach’s alpha. These additions strengthen the transparency and methodological rigor of the study.

Google forms are used to collect the data but which tools are used to analyse it ??

Thank you for this clarification request. We have expanded the Data Analysis section to explicitly state that quantitative analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 following data cleaning procedures. The manuscript now also clarifies how qualitative responses were coded and analyzed. This ensures full transparency regarding the analytical tools and procedures used.

who analysis is validated ??

Thank you for this clarification request. We have revised the manuscript to explicitly describe the qualitative analysis procedure. Open-ended responses were independently coded by two researchers following a deductive–inductive approach. Inter-coder agreement was discussed, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus. These procedures enhance the credibility and reliability of the qualitative findings.

can this analysis is validated around the world ??

Thank you for this important question. We have clarified the issue of external validity in the Limitations section. While the study focuses on the Czech educational context and cannot claim global statistical generalizability, the findings align with international research trends on AI normalization in schools. The Czech educational system shares structural similarities with many European systems, which enhances analytical transferability. We also suggest that future cross-national comparative research could further validate these patterns.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following requests are intended as suggestions for improvement.

I generally advise against presenting the results already in the abstract. I would therefore suggest reformulating it so that it provides the necessary explanations while leaving the reader motivated to explore the findings within the article itself.

Given the substantial changes that have occurred between 2023 and 2025, I would recommend strengthening the explanations that help to construct a differential and progressive perspective on teachers’ competencies and on the increasing pervasiveness of AI (particularly large language models) in teachers’ professional lives. Unlike other technologies, AI has proven to be more invasive. For example, the transition from a mobile phone to a smartphone required the purchase of new hardware, whereas access to tools such as ChatGPT, even today, does not necessarily require a paid account to achieve satisfactory results.

In Section “1.1. Barriers to AI Implementation and Teachers’ Needs”, beginning with “Empirical research from recent years shows…”, the relevant studies should be cited explicitly, following APA style guidelines.

Regarding the phrase “the development of teachers’ attitudes and their experiences with AI in the Czech educational context”, further elaboration is needed. Specifically, it would be useful to explain why the Czech context is comparable to that of other European countries. If this similarity is meant to be highlighted, I suggest including background information on ICT levels in schools, digital competencies of the population, and relevant national statistical data. Additionally, it should be clarified whether the analysis refers primarily to urban areas, rural areas, or both.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following requests are intended as suggestions for improvement.

I generally advise against presenting the results already in the abstract. I would therefore suggest reformulating it so that it provides the necessary explanations while leaving the reader motivated to explore the findings within the article itself.

We thank both reviewers for their valuable and complementary suggestions regarding the abstract. In response, we have substantially revised and restructured the abstract. First, following Reviewer 1’s recommendation, we strengthened the introductory framing and explicitly articulated the research gap by highlighting the need to examine the transition from early exploratory use of generative AI to its normalization in educational practice. At the same time, in accordance with Reviewer 2’s suggestion, we reduced the emphasis on specific numerical results and detailed statistical reporting. Instead, the revised abstract now presents the findings at a more conceptual level, focusing on key trends and theoretical implications while encouraging readers to engage with the full analysis presented in the manuscript. We believe that this revised version balances both perspectives by clearly situating the study within the broader research context while maintaining readability and analytical focus.

Given the substantial changes that have occurred between 2023 and 2025, I would recommend strengthening the explanations that help to construct a differential and progressive perspective on teachers’ competencies and on the increasing pervasiveness of AI (particularly large language models) in teachers’ professional lives. Unlike other technologies, AI has proven to be more invasive. For example, the transition from a mobile phone to a smartphone required the purchase of new hardware, whereas access to tools such as ChatGPT, even today, does not necessarily require a paid account to achieve satisfactory results.

Thank you for this insightful comment. We have strengthened the Discussion section to emphasize that the 2023–2025 comparison represents not only increased AI adoption but a qualitative transformation in teachers’ professional practices and competencies. The revised text now conceptualizes generative AI as a particularly pervasive technology that integrates into existing infrastructures without requiring structural hardware change, thereby affecting pedagogical routines, assessment practices, and professional identity. We believe this addition provides a clearer progressive and differential perspective on AI normalization in education.

In Section “1.1. Barriers to AI Implementation and Teachers’ Needs”, beginning with “Empirical research from recent years shows…”, the relevant studies should be cited explicitly, following APA style guidelines.

Thank you for this important stylistic and academic remarkThe references were also rechecked to ensure full compliance with APA formatting guidelines.

Regarding the phrase “the development of teachers’ attitudes and their experiences with AI in the Czech educational context”, further elaboration is needed. Specifically, it would be useful to explain why the Czech context is comparable to that of other European countries. If this similarity is meant to be highlighted, I suggest including background information on ICT levels in schools, digital competencies of the population, and relevant national statistical data. Additionally, it should be clarified whether the analysis refers primarily to urban areas, rural areas, or both.

Thank you for this important contextual remark. We have expanded the Introduction to clarify the position of the Czech educational system within the broader European context, including references to national and EU-level digital education indicators. We also specified that the sample included teachers from all regions of the country, covering both urban and rural areas. These additions strengthen the discussion of contextual comparability and external validity.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments are addressed