Exploring Teacher Awareness of Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Case Study from Northern Cyprus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please state the problem statement in a separate sub-heading.

You should use a suitable framework to guide you through the study and to justify your results.

Connect the results to the previous literature. 

Connect the results to the framework.

Sometimes you used "paper", "research", and "study". Please unified the terminologies. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor 

Author Response

Comment 1. Please state the problem statement in a separate sub-heading.

The research questions and purpose section is handled as a separate heading (Check “3. Aim and Importance of the Study”). In this section, the research questions are explained in detail. It is stated why answers to these questions are sought. The questions are associated with the theoretical framework one by one. Creating the problem situation in the introduction section of the research will cause repetition. For this reason, it was not preferred to make a separate title.

 

Comment 2. You should use a suitable framework to guide you through the study and to justify your results.

A broad/detailed theoretical framework has been added to the study to be relevant and consistent with the findings and discussion. (Check lines 144-192)

 

Comment 3. Connect the results to the previous literature.

Done (Check lines 573-588)

 

Comment 4. Connect the results to the framework.

Done (Check lines 573-588)

 

Comment 5. Sometimes you used "paper", "research", and "study". Please unified the terminologies.

The term ‘study’ was preferred. However, since it is widely used in some cases, such as research design, research questions, the word “research” was left.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a novel and highly relevant topic by investigating the level of awareness among teachers regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence in education.

Major issues

The theoretical framework should be reviewed and structured more balanced, incorporating more concrete data (specific statistics, empirical studies etc.)

The authors' premise is that AI holds significant potential and will create the conditions necessary to overcome many challenges in the field of education. The authors' enthusiasm presents a hyperbolized view of the benefits of AI, yet everything remains very vague and general. Critical questions are left unanswered, such as: How many schools are currently using AI? How frequently is it being utilized? What are the measurable outcomes? What risks are associated with its implementation? How significant are the benefits?

The cited passages could be viewed more critically or with caution. AI is not a universal panacea. For example, on page 1, line 50, and page 2, lines 51-53, the benefits of AI are presented with great enthusiasm.

The manuscript frequently lists the advantages and various applications of AI in many teaching tasks. However, the discussion on limitations is minimal, as seen on page 4, lines 160-164, and primarily addresses the concern that AI might replace teachers. This perspective implies that AI could perform as well as, or even better than a teacher (page 4, line 164; page 4, line 187). More moderation is necessary. Although AI holds significant potential, it is essential to acknowledge and discuss its limitations, some of which are quite substantial. A more balanced approach, highlighting both the potential benefits and the critical constraints of AI in education would be recommended.

The presented data do not provide relevant information. If only half of the respondents report using AI in their lessons, if the most used device is the mobile phone, and if the most commonly used AI tool is ChatGPT, the data and results become somewhat irrelevant (page 8). Additionally, the relevance of the internet browser used by teachers is questionable. The number of subjects and their highly diverse sociodemographic characteristics mean that the results need to be analyzed with caution.

Minor issues

The writing style could be improved as there are repetitive ideas and structures across different paragraphs.

The article needs major revision for possible publication taking into considerations the reviewer’s comments and suggestions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English phrasing could benefit from minor corrections.

Author Response

Comment 1: The theoretical framework should be reviewed and structured more balanced, incorporating more concrete data (specific statistics, empirical studies etc.)

Done (Please check lines 193-255)

 

Comment 2: The authors' premise is that AI holds significant potential and will create the conditions necessary to overcome many challenges in the field of education. The authors' enthusiasm presents a hyperbolized view of the benefits of AI, yet everything remains very vague and general. Critical questions are left unanswered, such as: How many schools are currently using AI? How frequently is it being utilized? What are the measurable outcomes? What risks are associated with its implementation? How significant are the benefits?

Done (Please check 193-255 and 281-293)

 

Comment 3: The cited passages could be viewed more critically or with caution. AI is not a universal panacea. For example, on page 1, line 50, and page 2, lines 51-53, the benefits of AI are presented with great enthusiasm.

As suggested by the author, a more critical and objective view of artificial intelligence was taken as a basis. The sentences in question have been changed (See lines 53-58)

 

Comment 4: The manuscript frequently lists the advantages and various applications of AI in many teaching tasks. However, the discussion on limitations is minimal, as seen on page 4, lines 160-164, and primarily addresses the concern that AI might replace teachers. This perspective implies that AI could perform as well as, or even better than a teacher (page 4, line 164; page 4, line 187). More moderation is necessary. Although AI holds significant potential, it is essential to acknowledge and discuss its limitations, some of which are quite substantial. A more balanced approach, highlighting both the potential benefits and the critical constraints of AI in education would be recommended.

In order to obtain a more balanced approach, the problems that may be experienced due to the use of Artificial Intelligence in education are summarised in a paragraph (See 104-120)

 

Comment 5: The presented data do not provide relevant information. If only half of the respondents report using AI in their lessons, if the most used device is the mobile phone, and if the most commonly used AI tool is ChatGPT, the data and results become somewhat irrelevant (page 8). Additionally, the relevance of the internet browser used by teachers is questionable. The number of subjects and their highly diverse sociodemographic characteristics mean that the results need to be analyzed with caution.

 

No explanation was made in the discussion about the variables you wrote. In the limitations section of the research, limitations were written in 1-2 sentences. Check lines:

Owing to the extensive number of dimensions and the multitude of factors examined in the research, the variables that failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference and related with technological issues (search engine, internet access AI tool) were not examined.

 

Comment 6: The writing style could be improved as there are repetitive ideas and structures across different paragraphs.

Done

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the level of teachers' awareness regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education, through research conducted in Northern Cyprus during the 2023-24 academic year. The research is very interesting and well explained.

The research methodology is rich and the findings and conclusions are significant.

 

- Line 15 should specify the level of education of the teachers involved (secondary school, university, etc.) and the proportions compared to the total number.

- Line 38, delete ".or".

- Line 133. The sentence is not necessary.

- In paragraph 2.1 the risks and critical issues of AI presented are quite generic and not specific to AI in education. You could explain what the country's policies are on the use of AI by students (laws and regulations, training courses for teachers and students, bans or incentives, etc.). The theoretical framework should also serve to explain the design of the survey, this connection is not clear. For example, was the "Monthly Income Level" data asked of the teachers or taken from other sources?

- A sample of 164 teachers out of 5627 does not seem significant, could you add some considerations in this regard? What discipline do teachers teach?

- table 2 is not cited in the text

- how were the teachers involved? On a voluntary basis or did they have an incentive to participate in the survey?

- line 483 lacks citation of recent studies

- Were the potential downsides of AI discussed in the conclusions also investigated with the teachers? What is their view on this?

Author Response

Comment 1: Line 15 should specify the level of education of the teachers involved (secondary school, university, etc.) and the proportions compared to the total number.

An additional sentence was added to the abstract and the grade level of the teachers was written (See lines 16-17). However, the proportion of the teachers is not given because the necessary information is available in Table 2.

 

Comment 2: Line 38, delete ".or".

Erased

 

Comment 3: Line 133. The sentence is not necessary.

Erased

 

Comment 4: In paragraph 2.1 the risks and critical issues of AI presented are quite generic and not specific to AI in education. You could explain what the country's policies are on the use of AI by students (laws and regulations, training courses for teachers and students, bans or incentives, etc.).

Done. Please check lines 194-255)

 

Comment 5: The theoretical framework should also serve to explain the design of the survey, this connection is not clear. For example, was the "Monthly Income Level" data asked of the teachers or taken from other sources?

In the research, the research questions were formed based on the scale. In particular, the relationship between the theoretical framework and the research questions was written and a connection was tried to be established  (Check 338-359). The relationship between the scale and the theoretical framework was established indirectly through the research questions.

In the questions in the scale, the source of information was explained (Check line 435).

 

Comment 6: A sample of 164 teachers out of 5627 does not seem significant, could you add some considerations in this regard? What discipline do teachers teach?

The research did not only target teachers who use AI, but also those who use it in their teaching. In this case, it was not possible to reach these teachers through random sampling. Therefore, purposive and snowball sampling was chosen. It should be noted that the word population is not used in the title and the participants are referred to as participants. The reason why snowball sampling was chosen was explained in 1-2 sentences and added to the article. (Check lines 405-407)

 

Comment 7: Table 2 is not cited in the text.

Cited (See line line 424).

 

Comment 8: How were the teachers involved? On a voluntary basis or did they have an incentive to participate in the survey?

In the data collection procedure section of the method, it is stated that the teachers voluntarily participated in this study (See line 446).

 

Comment 9: Line 483 lacks citation of recent studies.

Added. (Check line 652)

 

Comment 10: Were the potential downsides of AI discussed in the conclusions also investigated with the teachers? What is their view on this?

If qualitative research had been conducted, this suggestion would have been realised. Also, such a question was not included in the research questions. This referee comment was added to the article as a suggestion that should be made in future research. (See lines 696-698)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the manuscript presents a significant improvement. The authors have addressed the majority of the concerns raised in the initial review, and the changes have enhanced the overall quality and clarity of the manuscript.