Leveraging Generative AI Through Vibe Coding: A Case of Simulation-Based Curriculum Redesign in Management Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript analyses how Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) can support simulation-based curriculum redesign in management education. It presents a practice-oriented case illustrating how educators can leverage GenAI tools to develop interactive simulations and redesign learning activities. The topic is relevant and valuable for educators and researchers. The manuscript is well structured, provides useful practical insights and presents a structured framework for using GenAI in curriculum development. However, some minor errors should be corrected:

Line 8: “As many education disciplines increasingly demand pedagogical approaches that integrate transferable skills with disciplinary knowledge” syntactically incomplete sentence. Suggestion: “As many educational disciplines increasingly demand pedagogical approaches that integrate transferable skills with disciplinary knowledge, educators face growing pressure to redesign curricula accordingly”.

Line 151: “towards a the leveraging of emergent tools” should be corrected to: “towards leveraging emergent tools.”

Line 151–152: “create of conducive learning environments” should be corrected to: “create conducive learning environments.”

Line 489: “rom medical education to operations management education” should be corrected to: “from medical education to operations management education.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some corrections need to be made.

Line 8: “As many education disciplines increasingly demand pedagogical approaches that integrate transferable skills with disciplinary knowledge” syntactically incomplete sentence. Suggestion: “As many educational disciplines increasingly demand pedagogical approaches that integrate transferable skills with disciplinary knowledge, educators face growing pressure to redesign curricula accordingly”.

Line 151: “towards a the leveraging of emergent tools” should be corrected to: “towards leveraging emergent tools.”

Line 151–152: “create of conducive learning environments” should be corrected to: “create conducive learning environments.”

Line 489: “rom medical education to operations management education” should be corrected to: “from medical education to operations management education.”

Author Response

We thank both reviewers for their careful engagement with the manuscript. Their feedback has materially strengthened the paper. Below we provide a point-by-point response to each comment.

Comment 1 — Abstract sentence fragment (Line 8)

Reviewer comment:

“As many education disciplines increasingly demand pedagogical approaches that integrate transferable skills with disciplinary knowledge” — syntactically incomplete sentence. Suggestion: “As many educational disciplines increasingly demand pedagogical approaches that integrate transferable skills with disciplinary knowledge, educators face growing pressure to redesign curricula accordingly.”

Response:

We thank the reviewer for identifying this. The sentence fragment has been removed entirely in the revised abstract, which has been substantially rewritten to more precisely frame the paper’s contribution. The abstract now reads as a series of complete, grammatically correct sentences throughout.

Comment 2 — “towards a the leveraging of emergent tools” (Line 151)

Reviewer comment:

“towards a the leveraging of emergent tools” should be corrected to: “towards leveraging emergent tools.”

Response:

Corrected. The revised manuscript reads: “…towards the leveraging of emergent tools to create conducive learning environments…” (Section 3.1, first paragraph).

Comment 3 — “create of conducive learning environments” (Lines 151–152)

Reviewer comment:

“create of conducive learning environments” should be corrected to: “create conducive learning environments.”

Response:

Corrected. The revised manuscript reads: “…towards the leveraging of emergent tools to create conducive learning environments (Crawford et al., 2023) and enhance the student experience…” (Section 3.1, first paragraph).

Comment 4 — “rom medical education” (Line 489)

Reviewer comment:

“rom medical education to operations management education” should be corrected to: “from medical education to operations management education.”

Response:

Corrected. The revised manuscript reads: “…it extends the application of vibe coding (Barzanji & Loitsch, 2025; Chow & Ng, 2025; Karpathy, 2025) from medical education to operations management education, demonstrating cross-disciplinary transferability.” (Section 6, Theoretical Contribution paragraph).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The SRVE (Specify-Refine-Verify-Embed) framework, grounded in design thinking and constructivist pedagogy, is the manuscript's central innovation.

Minor Issues

• Line 10: The abstract contains a sentence fragment: "As many education disciplines increasingly demand pedagogical approaches that integrate transferable skills with disciplinary knowledge" which is not completed before the following sentence begins. Revise for grammatical completeness.​

• Line 148: "Research points to GenAI tools are best used…" should read "Research suggests GenAI tools are best used…".​

• Line 150–151: "towards a the leveraging of emergent tools to create of conducive learning environments" contains redundant articles. Revise.​

• Line 421: "it also exposes educators risks" is missing a preposition. Should read "exposes educators to risks."​

• Line 488: "rom medical education" is missing the initial letter 'f'.
  
  

"Vibe coding" is used as a central theoretical construct, yet the term was coined very recently and its scholarly definition remains contested. The manuscript cites only three sources for the concept two of which are from 2025 with limited citation history. The authors should more carefully distinguish between vibe coding as a casual/informal software practice and its adapted use here as a structured pedagogical design methodology, since the SRVE framework itself substantially transforms the original concept.

Figure 1 (SRVE Framework) is referenced but not described in sufficient narrative detail. The relationship between the four prompt patterns and the five-stage design thinking process (Empathize–Define–Ideate–Prototype–Test) is stated as mapping to the Prototype phase, but the Empathize, Define, Ideate, and Test stages are not explicitly operationalized in the workflow. This weakens the design thinking claim. A table mapping each design thinking stage to specific author actions in this case would substantially strengthen this section.

1 reference is missing from the bibliography (Hasso Plattner Institute, 2010).

The primary revisions required are: (1) explicit statement of research questions and methodology, (2) reframing or supplementing the student outcomes gap, and (3) correction of the minor grammatical errors identified above. These are achievable within a minor revision cycle and do not require additional data collection.

The manuscript does not articulate formal research questions or a stated methodology. The paper identifies itself as a "conceptual, practice-oriented contribution", yet the case study framing implies some evaluative intent. Authors should explicitly state: (a) what the research question(s) are, (b) what case study methodology is being employed (e.g., interpretive, descriptive, single-site), and (c) how data for educator and tutor reflections was collected and analyzed. Without this, the study sits ambiguously between practitioner reflection and academic case study research.

Student Learning Outcomes Are Not Measured. The authors acknowledge this limitation directly: reflections are "based on educator and tutor observations with the contribution focus being on other educators rather than evaluation of student learning outcomes". This is a significant gap for a paper published in Education Sciences. Authors should either: (a) include even descriptive student performance data across the three course iterations, or (b) more prominently reframe the paper's contribution as a design and implementation report rather than an educational effectiveness study. Informal feedback from students is mentioned but is anecdotal and unverified.

Author Response

We thank both reviewers for their careful engagement with the manuscript. The feedback has materially strengthened the paper. Below we provide a point-by-point response to each comment. 

Comment 1 — Abstract sentence fragment (Line 10)

Reviewer comment:

The abstract contains a sentence fragment: “As many education disciplines increasingly demand pedagogical approaches that integrate transferable skills with disciplinary knowledge” which is not completed before the following sentence begins. Revise for grammatical completeness.

Response:

Addressed — The abstract has been fully rewritten and the fragment removed.

Comment 2 — “Research points to GenAI tools are best used” (Line 148)

Reviewer comment:

“Research points to GenAI tools are best used…” should read “Research suggests GenAI tools are best used…”

Response:

Corrected. The revised manuscript reads: “Research points to GenAI tools being best used as a teaching supplement, rather than a replacement (Kasneci et al., 2023).” (Section 3.1, first paragraph). We have retained “Research points to” as the construction but corrected the grammatical error by replacing “are best used” with “being best used”.

Comment 3 — Redundant articles in Lines 150–151

Reviewer comment:

“towards a the leveraging of emergent tools to create of conducive learning environments” contains redundant articles. Revise.

Response:

Corrected

Comment 4 — “exposes educators risks” (Line 421)

Reviewer comment:

“it also exposes educators risks” is missing a preposition. Should read “exposes educators to risks.”

Response:

Corrected. The revised manuscript reads: “While autonomy fosters creativity, it exposes educators to risks that could be mitigated through institutional investment in training and infrastructure (Ravi et al., 2025).” (Section 5.2, second paragraph).

Comment 5 — “rom medical education” (Line 488)

Reviewer comment:

“rom medical education” is missing the initial letter ‘f’.

Response:

Corrected 

Substantive revisions

Comment 6 — Vibe coding: scholarly definition and distinction from SRVE

Reviewer comment:

“Vibe coding” is used as a central theoretical construct, yet the term was coined very recently and its scholarly definition remains contested. The manuscript cites only three sources for the concept, two of which are from 2025 with limited citation history. The authors should more carefully distinguish between vibe coding as a casual/informal software practice and its adapted use here as a structured pedagogical design methodology, since the SRVE framework itself substantially transforms the original concept.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the distinction between vibe coding’s informal origins and the structured pedagogical methodology represented by the SRVE framework needed to be made explicit.

A new standalone transitional paragraph has been added to Section 4.1, between the description of vibe coding and the introduction of the design thinking framework. The paragraph explicitly distinguishes Karpathy’s (2025) original informal conception from the structured use in this paper, framing the SRVE framework as an operationalisation of vibe coding through design thinking principles rather than a mere application of it. The new paragraph reads:

“Vibe coding, in its original conception, describes an informal mode of interacting with LLMs to produce code and one that tolerates imprecision in favour of creative momentum (Chow & Ng, 2025; Karpathy, 2025). However, we acknowledge that application in an educational design context demands greater structure and accountability. In this paper, we operationalize vibe coding through design thinking principles, applying a more structured approach. The result is the SRVE framework: a structured, replicable workflow that preserves the accessibility and iterative spirit of vibe coding while embedding the rigour, verification, and contextual alignment required of educational artefacts.”

(Section 4.1, third paragraph — between the vibe coding description and the design thinking paragraph)

Comment 7 — Figure 1 / SRVE not described in narrative; design thinking stages not operationalised

Reviewer comment:

Figure 1 (SRVE Framework) is referenced but not described in sufficient narrative detail. The relationship between the four prompt patterns and the five-stage design thinking process is stated as mapping to the Prototype phase, but the Empathize, Define, Ideate, and Test stages are not explicitly operationalized in the workflow. A table mapping each design thinking stage to specific author actions in this case would substantially strengthen this section.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, which has substantially strengthened the paper. A new Table 1 has been added to the manuscript mapping all five design thinking stages to the specific actions taken in this case and to the corresponding SRVE prompting pattern.

A key insight made explicit in the table is the identification of a pre-SRVE framing phase: the Empathize, Define, and Ideate stages constitute the pedagogical and contextual groundwork that precedes any prompting activity. This framing directly addresses the reviewer’s concern that these stages were not operationalised. The Prototype and Test stages are then explicitly mapped to the Specify→Refine and Verify→Embed prompting patterns respectively.

A signposting sentence has also been added to the paragraph preceding Figure 1: “Table 1 maps each stage of the design thinking process to the specific actions taken in this case and to the corresponding SRVE prompting pattern. Notably, the first three stages — Empathize, Define, and Ideate — constitute a pre-SRVE framing phase, in which the pedagogical problem is understood and the design direction established before any prompting begins.” (Section 4.1, fifth paragraph)

Additionally, the missing reference (Hasso Plattner Institute, 2010), cited in the text, has been added to the reference list.

Comment 8 — Missing reference: Hasso Plattner Institute (2010)

Reviewer comment:

1 reference is missing from the bibliography (Hasso Plattner Institute, 2010).

Response:

Corrected. The full reference has been added to the reference list: Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford, U. (2010). An introduction to design thinking: Process guide. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ih-materials/uploads/Introduction-to-design-thinking.pdf

Comment 9 — No formal research questions or stated methodology

Reviewer comment:

The manuscript does not articulate formal research questions or a stated methodology. The paper identifies itself as a “conceptual, practice-oriented contribution”, yet the case study framing implies some evaluative intent. Authors should explicitly state: (a) what the research question(s) are, (b) what case study methodology is being employed, and (c) how data for educator and tutor reflections was collected and analyzed. Without this, the study sits ambiguously between practitioner reflection and academic case study research.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important comment. On reflection, we agree that the methodological positioning of the paper required more precision, and we have addressed this substantively.

A new paragraph has been added to the Introduction (final paragraph before the Background section) that: (a) states an explicit research question; (b) identifies the methodological approach as design-based research (DBR); and (c) describes how reflection data was collected and reviewed.

We have chosen DBR as the methodological framing rather than case study methodology for the following reasons. DBR is explicitly designed for situations in which a researcher designs a theoretically-grounded intervention, implements it in a naturalistic context, and refines it iteratively — which accurately describes what was done here (Barab & Squire, 2004). Critically, DBR also accommodates situations in which the theoretical conjecture underpinning the intervention is borrowed from existing literature rather than tested anew: the well-established evidence base for simulation-based learning (Chernikova et al., 2020; Kageyama et al., 2022) serves as this conjecture. The research question being pursued is upstream of that conjecture — whether a structured GenAI-enabled workflow can make a proven but previously inaccessible pedagogy accessible to resource-constrained educators. The primary contribution is a design process output (Hoadley & Campos, 2022) in the form of the SRVE framework.

The new paragraph reads (Introduction, fifth paragraph):

“This paper addresses the following research question: How can GenAI be leveraged through a structured prompt-driven workflow to enable simulation-based curriculum redesign in a resource-constrained higher education context? To address this question, we employ a design-based research (DBR) approach (Barab & Squire, 2004; Hoadley & Campos, 2022; Sandoval & Bell, 2004), situating our study within a postgraduate operations management course at a regional Australian university across three non-sequential trimesters. Our DBR approach involved the creation of a theoretically grounded intervention in a naturalistic context, and iterative refinement across multiple course iterations (Barab & Squire, 2004). We leveraged existing research in simulation-based learning as a valid means of developing analytical and decision-making skills through constructivist, active learning principles (Chernikova et al., 2020; Kageyama et al., 2022). Notably, the research establishing the value of simulation-based education is borrowed rather than tested here. … Reflections were collected from the educators throughout the three course iterations, and informal post-implementation conversations with the tutors who co-delivered the face-to-face sessions. These reflections were reviewed to identify recurring observations and patterns across the three course iterations, with the contribution directed at other educators seeking to replicate or adapt this approach.”

Three new references have been added to the reference list to support the DBR framing: Barab & Squire (2004), Hoadley & Campos (2022), and Sandoval & Bell (2004).

Comment 10 — Student learning outcomes not measured

Reviewer comment:

Student Learning Outcomes Are Not Measured. The authors acknowledge this limitation directly: reflections are “based on educator and tutor observations with the contribution focus being on other educators rather than evaluation of student learning outcomes”. This is a significant gap for a paper published in Education Sciences. Authors should either: (a) include even descriptive student performance data across the three course iterations, or (b) more prominently reframe the paper’s contribution as a design and implementation report rather than an educational effectiveness study.

Response:

We appreciate this comment and have addressed it by adopting option (b) — a more prominent and explicit reframing of the paper’s contribution — implemented across three locations in the manuscript.

Our reasoning is as follows. Simulation-based learning has a well-established and extensively validated evidence base for improving student learning outcomes (Chernikova et al., 2020; Hallinger & Wang, 2020). Replicating that validation was never the intent of this study. Rather, the paper’s purpose is to address a different and complementary problem: that pedagogies with a strong evidence base have historically been inaccessible to resource-constrained educators due to technical and financial barriers. By demonstrating that GenAI-enabled vibe coding can close that gap, the paper contributes to the field’s ability to realise the benefits that simulation-based learning research has already established — rather than re-establishing those benefits from scratch. Linking vibe coding directly to student outcomes would address a valuable but distinct research question, and we identify this as a direction for future empirical work.

The following three revisions implement this reframing:

Abstract: The final sentences of the abstract have been replaced to foreground the accessibility contribution explicitly: “Simulation-based learning has an established evidence base for improving student learning outcomes; the challenge has been accessibility. This paper’s contribution is not to re-validate that evidence, but to demonstrate that pedagogies once beyond the reach of resource-constrained educators are now meaningfully accessible through GenAI-enabled vibe coding.”

Introduction: The final paragraph of the Introduction has been revised to explicitly position the paper as a conceptual, practice-oriented design and implementation study: “Its contribution is not to re-examine whether simulation-based learning improves student outcomes; that evidence is well established (Chernikova et al., 2020). Rather, we address the more fundamental constraint of educator accessibility.”

Limitations section: The second limitation has been substantially expanded to reframe the absence of student outcome data as a deliberate rather than incidental feature of the contribution, and to identify two specific directions for future empirical research: “Whether SRVE-structured vibe coding produces simulation artefacts of sufficient quality to realize those documented learning benefits, and whether the accessibility gains are sufficient to meaningfully expand the population of educators who can implement simulation-based learning, are important directions for future empirical research. The present study provides the naturalistic implementation evidence that grounds those future investigations.” (Section 6, Limitations paragraph).