Voices from the Flip: Teacher Perspectives on Integrating AI Chatbots in Flipped English Classrooms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The introduction is too long. It should be shortened. I
2. The literature review should be more detailed. Previous studies about AI, especially AI in the flipped classroom, should be added and discussed.
3. Methodology: The author should explain how participants were chosen and how did you make sure that they used a flipped classroom
4. The discussion chapter should discuss the findings in the light of the literature review first, before the author suggests implications. In the discussion section, the author should highlight the contribution of the findings of the current study.

Author Response

Dear Examiner,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. The comments have been invaluable in improving the clarity, rigor, and contribution of this study. Please refer to my point-by-point response as follows:

1. The introduction is too long. It should be shortened. Response: The introduction has been shortened for conciseness and clarity. Page 1-3.
2. The literature review should be more detailed. Previous studies about AI, especially AI in the flipped classroom, should be added and discussed. Response: The introduction has been shortened for clarity, and a more detailed literature review—especially on AI in flipped classrooms—has been added within the same chapter. Page 3.
3. Methodology: The author should explain how participants were chosen and how did you make sure that they used a flipped classroom. Response: Clarified participant selection, noting that teachers were required to join the Flipped Program and their flipped classroom experience was verified through surveys, lesson plans, and interview checks. Page 4
4. The discussion chapter should discuss the findings in the light of the literature review first, before the author suggests implications. In the discussion section, the author should highlight the contribution of the findings of the current study. Response: The Discussion chapter has been revised to first interpret the findings in relation to the literature, explicitly linking each result to prior studies. The contributions of the current study, particularly regarding teacher mediation and TPACK enactment in AI-supported flipped classrooms, are now clearly highlighted before presenting practical and theoretical implications. Page 14-16

Thank you again for your time and effort.

Warm Regards,

The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-          The paper is well written and the topic is interesting; however, some major details should be added in the methodology and analysis sections. In the methodology, a more detailed description is needed regarding the flipped classroom design, for example, the type of flipping, the content, the number of students, the number of classes that are flipped, etc. Also, what is the reason behind flipping the classroom (e.g., is it required by the institution or is it optional?)? This study appears to involve an intervention using AI chatbots. Although it employed a purposive sample, it could be classified as quasi-experimental or action research if the researcher is a teacher. Since students are included, how did the researcher collect their consent to participate? The same thing applies to teachers' participation. Additionally, the observation method used should be further detailed, such as being structured or semi-structured. The number of observations conducted and the person conducting them should also be specified. Regarding the analysis, with thematic analysis, themes and subthemes must be defined from the theoretical framework and generated from the analysed data. 

Author Response

Dear Examiner,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. The comments have been invaluable in improving the clarity, rigor, and contribution of this study. Please refer to my point-by-point response as follows:

1. In the methodology, a more detailed description is needed regarding the flipped classroom design, for example, the type of flipping, the content, the number of students, the number of classes that are flipped, etc. Response: The Methodology section has been expanded to provide a detailed description of the flipped classroom design, including the structure of pre-class and in-class activities, course content, class sizes, number of classes, and how AI chatbots were integrated as an instructional intervention. Page 4 
2. Also, what is the reason behind flipping the classroom (e.g., is it required by the institution or is it optional?)? This study appears to involve an intervention using AI chatbots. Response:The flipped classroom was part of a mandatory Flipped Program required by the university, ensuring that all participating teachers had direct experience with flipped teaching. Within this program, AI chatbots were integrated as an instructional intervention to support pre-class autonomous learning and in-class collaborative activities. Page 4 
3. Although it employed a purposive sample, it could be classified as quasi-experimental or action research if the researcher is a teacher. Response: Although purposive sampling was used, the study is not quasi-experimental or action research, as the researcher did not teach the courses or implement the AI intervention. All data were collected from teachers who independently integrated AI chatbots into their flipped classrooms, making this a qualitative single-case study focused on understanding their experiences and perceptions
4. Since students are included, how did the researcher collect their consent to participate? The same thing applies to teachers' participation. Response: Although the primary participants were teachers, classroom observations inevitably involved students. Ethical approval was obtained from the university, and teachers informed students that observations would take place for research purposes. No personal data from students were recorded, and all student interactions were anonymized. All teachers participated gave informed Consents.  Page 5. 
5. Additionally, the observation method used should be further detailed, such as being structured or semi-structured. The number of observations conducted and the person conducting them should also be specified. Response: The methodology has been revised to clarify that classroom observations were semi-structured, conducted by the researcher as a non-participating observer, covering eight class sessions. It also specifies that no identifiable student data were collected and all observations were anonymized to protect privacy. Page 5 
6. Regarding the analysis, with thematic analysis, themes and subthemes must be defined from the theoretical framework and generated from the analysed data. Response: The Findings section has been revised to clarify the thematic analysis process. Themes and subthemes were generated using a hybrid approach, combining deductive coding informed by the TPACK framework and inductive coding emerging from the data. This ensures that all findings are both theoretically grounded and data-driven, with each theme explicitly linked to teacher statements and observation notes. Page 7.

Thank you again for your time and effort.

Warm Regards,

The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am glad to have the chance to review your manuscript.

It explores a timely and relevant topic for academic research.

The article has several strengths, including the organization of the study, clarity of writing, succinct content, and effective quotations.

The article has a central limitation, a tiny sample for analysis, but this does not seem to affect the overall merit of the article.

Regarding the research method, I would like to recommend reviewing the following points:

Cite the version of the software used for coding.
Present evidence of the coding process, procedures related to the trustworthiness section, and ethical conduct issues. It could be presented in the text, in an appendix, or in supplementary material.
Add supplementary material such as interview transcripts, coding process reports, and trustworthiness-related documents.
Add information related to ethical concerns regarding the interviews, such as consent forms, conflicts of interest, and committee approval.

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Examiner,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. The comments have been invaluable in improving the clarity, rigor, and contribution of this study. Please refer to my point-by-point response as follows:

1. Cite the version of the software used for coding. Response: The methodology section now specifies that coding was conducted using MAXQDA 2024 (VERBI Software, 2024), and the full reference has been added to the reference list. Page 6
2. Clearer evidence of the coding process, trustworthiness procedures, and ethical conduct. Response: The required documents are attached at the end of the thesis. 

Thank you again for your time and effort.

Warm Regards,

The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article constitutes a coherent and robust piece of research. Though it relies on a reduced sample of university teachers, it contributes very interesting insights into the intersection between flipped teaching and chatbot-mediated language teaching/learning in higher education in a Chinese context. The study addresses a significant gap in the existing scholarship in this field, namely, teachers’ agency and perception of their evolving roles as mediators and facilitators in hybrid (i.e., human- and AI-mediated) language learning environments. More specifically, through the analytical lens of the TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) framework, the article ponders how teachers use AI in their teaching practice, the impact of chatbot use on students’ learning, as well as teachers’ responses to emerging challenges that call for a redesign of learning experiences and instructional strategies in classroom settings. The article is elegantly written and clearly structured around sections that advance the major arguments presented by the author. As betrayed by the relevant references it builds upon and the depth of the critical analysis performed, the study is ambitious and offers precious insights into the fusion of flipped teaching and AI, while it also identifies the pedagogical benefits to be derived from chatbot use in language teaching and pressing issues perceived by the teachers interviewed in the course of the research conducted. In light of the above, the article is a significant contribution to the field.

     The author is advised to fix some minor details:

• Line 122: student -> students
• Line 175: eight class session -> class sessions.
• Figure 2: please, ensure the text in the last bullet point in the first and second squares can be read in full.
• Line 276: As can be seen from Figure 2 -> As can be seen in Figure 2
• Line 372: you’re doing great -> You’re doing great
• Line 372: Even it is automatic -> Even if it is automatic
• Line 403: over reliance -> over-reliance
• Line 414: as magic helper -> as a magic helper
• Line 502: Could you explain more about it’ -> Could you explain more about it?
• Line 615: Limitation -> Limitations

Author Response

Dear Examiner,

I sincerely thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback. I greatly appreciate the detailed comments and encouragement regarding the study’s contribution and clarity. All the minor issues highlighted—including the corrections to “student” (Line 122), “eight class session” (Line 175), Figure 2 text adjustments, “As can be seen from Figure 2” (Line 276), “you’re doing great” (Line 372), “Even it is automatic” (Line 372), “over reliance” (Line 403), “as magic helper” (Line 414), “Could you explain more about it’” (Line 502), and “Limitation” (Line 615)—have been carefully revised in the manuscript.

Warm Regards,

The Author

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A more detailed analysis of the theoretical framework would be good for readers. 

Author Response

Dear Examiner,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. The comments have been invaluable in improving the clarity, rigor, and contribution of this study. Please refer to my point-by-point response as follows:

1. A more detailed analysis of the theoretical framework would be good for readers. Response: The theoretical framework section has been expanded to provide a more detailed analysis of the TPACK model. The revision elaborates on the subdomains of TPACK (PCK, TCK, TPK) and explains their relevance to flipped classroom pedagogy. It also integrates discussion of how AI chatbots interact with each domain, highlighting both opportunities and challenges. Finally, a critical note has been added on the limitations of TPACK in accounting for emerging technologies, thereby strengthening the analytical depth of the framework. Page 3.

Thank you again for your time and effort.

Warm Regards,

The Author