Qualitative Analysis of College Teachers’ Practices Using ChatGPT to Develop Educational Materials and the Introduction of the TEACH Framework for Effective AI Integration

Qualitative Analysis of College Teachers’ Practices Using ChatGPT to Develop Educational Materials and the Introduction of the TEACH Framework for Effective AI Integration | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Qualitative Analysis of College Teachers’ Practices Using ChatGPT to Develop Educational Materials and the Introduction of the TEACH Framework for Effective AI Integration Louie Giray, Ruth Aquino, Mark Bonnin Jara This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8984458/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates how tertiary faculty members at a private university in the Philippines utilize ChatGPT to develop educational materials, focusing on their lived experiences and strategic adaptation. Employing a qualitative descriptive research design, data were collected from experienced faculty members through open-ended narrative responses. Thematic analysis was applied to identify recurring patterns in material generation, adaptation mechanics, and ethical considerations. Results indicate that educators leverage ChatGPT to produce a wide array of resources, including quizzes, lesson slides, rubrics, and LaTeX-formatted math problems, effectively reducing preparation time from hours to minutes. However, integration is not passive; participants utilized rigorous adaptation mechanics involving systematic fact-checking against established academic sources to mitigate AI hallucinations and conditioning the model with course-specific content. The findings highlight that while ChatGPT enhances creative ideation and professional efficiency, maintaining a distinct personal “teaching voice” and ensuring ethical transparency are central to their practice. Participants viewed AI as a structural scaffold requiring expert human mediation rather than a standalone replacement. Based on these qualitative insights, the study introduces the TEACH framework (Target, Expand, Assess, Customize, Highlight) as a structured, actionable guide for responsible AI-assisted instructional development. This framework underscores a human-AI-human collaborative cycle, which ensures that AI integration remains pedagogically sound, contextually relevant, and ethically grounded within the landscape of Philippine higher education. AI in Education ChatGPT Educational Materials Generative AI Higher Education Instructional Design Philippine Education TEACH Framework Figures Figure 1 INTRODUCTION ChatGPT’s use within the classroom is as diverse as its language-processing abilities. Its capacity to keep track of previous conversations [ 1 ] and generate personalized prompts for formative assessment [ 2 ] helps explain why many college students increasingly turn to the tool to support their understanding of course content. The famous Large Language Model (LLM) has even passed standardized tests that are used to qualify the licensure of doctors, lawyers, scientists, and engineers abroad [ 3 , 4 ]. No exception to this compulsion is a number of college teachers who integrate ChatGPT into easing their daily workloads: be it generating emails, scheduling, or refining the course’s content [ 5 ]. Such diverse applications raise important questions about how educators themselves evaluate and adapt the tool’s output to serve their students’ needs, a concern this study directly seeks to explore. The prominence of ChatGPT within the education sector is met with varied opinions. For instance, some scholars are skeptical about privacy, security, environmental, and ethical concerns [ 6 ], while some are ready to push for its implementation to support time-consuming teaching activities [ 7 , 8 ]. Others are quick to point out that ChatGPT makes the education sector lenient and erodes critical thinking [ 9 ], whereas some argue that the tool is revolutionary and remarkable for experts in their respective fields [ 10 ]. Top universities from the United Kingdom, including Oxford and Cambridge, have banned the use of ChatGPT for assessments, while schools in Los Angeles have resorted to completely blocking OpenAI’s sites for the entire school network [ 11 ]. The Philippines, highlighted by a large access gap to digital technologies such as ChatGPT, provides fertile areas for inquiry. In comparison to the 80% of the population with Internet access among urban centers, only 40% of rural areas are reported to have access to the Internet [ 12 ]. This is largely interesting because the Philippines remains one of the top 5 countries with the most users of the website despite this divide [ 13 ]. Alongside this, there is a significant void amongst studies that factor in how the unique cultural and organizational features of the Philippine Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) affect its deployment, implementation, and use. Addressing this gap is essential to understanding not only the role ChatGPT plays in shaping teaching practices in the country but also how educators themselves negotiate its promises and limitations within their professional contexts. The goal of this paper is to investigate how different college teachers use ChatGPT to develop educational materials. Specifically, it focuses on analyzing the testimonies and lived experiences of college teachers, highlighting how the different teachers evaluate and adapt ChatGPT’s output to fit their students’ needs. LITERATURE REVIEW Existing research on ChatGPT in education reveals a wide range of perspectives, from its potential to streamline instructional design to its risks of diminishing academic rigor. We first begin with a discussion of how ChatGPT is used in lesson planning and syllabus design. Second, we discuss its applications in preparing assessments such as quizzes and rubrics. Then, we proceed to a brief discussion of its role in creative ideation and brainstorming activities. Lastly, we examine its use in automating evaluation and the broader debates surrounding ChatGPT integration in the Philippine context. In an experimental study conducted in Turkey, researchers found that lesson plans that were prepared using ChatGPT yielded better academic results in math lessons ( $ d = 1.268 $ ) compared to the normal lesson plans in the control group [ 14 ]. However, another study points out that lesson plans created by ChatGPT were often “incomplete” or “lacking in necessary elements”, lacking in detail and thus being harder for a substitute teacher to pick up and use [ 15 ]. Several limitations were also revealed when ChatGPT was made to create an entire course syllabus and the program designed irrelevant lessons or hallucinated information based on fabricated data [ 16 ]. In short, the lesson plans created by ChatGPT were reported to become a “one-size-fits-all” that cannot adequately address the linguistic and cultural diversity one typically finds in a classroom. Other teachers also use ChatGPT to help prepare quizzes or assessments. In a study comparing the multiple-choice questions written by ChatGPT to university professoriate staff for graduate medical examinations, no significant decrease in quality aside from the domain of relevance was found [ 17 ]. However, other studies also highlight that the teacher’s role is decisive in creating prompts for ChatGPT to ensure the quality of these assessments, emphasizing the need for further revision and clarification once a teacher gives a specific source material [ 18 ]. Notably, ChatGPT’s processing capabilities can also be extended to rubrics. Teachers can use the program to create a table that immediately assigns numerical values to a specific set of criteria or to make an already established rubric more descriptive than it already is [ 19 ]. Some teachers are impressed with the quality of the rubrics that ChatGPT has generated, with some students even reporting that they know how to tackle or handle an assignment better because of clearly defined instructions and guidelines [ 20 ]. Both teachers and students can also use ChatGPT for creative ideation or brainstorming. Specifically, generating activities with the help of ChatGPT, which focused on refining language and content-based skills, were shown to have positive results, increasing student engagement and motivation [ 21 ]. Despite AI-driven brainstorming outperforming conventional idea generation methods by a small margin, students are quick to express overreliance as the biggest challenge in its use [ 22 ]. Perhaps what sparked the most discussion amongst scholars was how ChatGPT can be used to automate evaluation. Some studies show that ChatGPT demonstrates notable competency in grading written essays, with remarkable levels of inter-rater consistency compared to traditional human grading methods [ 23 ]. Interestingly, other scholars within dental education point out that ChatGPT’s grading tended to be stricter, incapable of penalizing entire paragraphs that have no direct relevance to the task or have falsified content [ 24 ]. As such, most teachers still feel the need to establish clear rubrics given that GPT-4 in its present state cannot be used as a standalone grading tool. In the Philippine context, discussions on ChatGPT integration echo both the optimism and caution seen in global studies. While the tool is increasingly recognized for its potential to enrich student learning and foster confidence in subjects such as mathematics and science, concerns persist about its broader implications for education. Scholars insist that ChatGPT must be used in moderation, with teachers guiding students through meaningful discussions and activities that build critical, social, and emotional skills [ 25 ]. Accordingly, other scholars report that techniques such as personalized prompt generation, scaffolded inquiry, and multimodal expression may help maximize ChatGPT's transformative capacity within the Philippines, provided they are integrated within curriculum frameworks that already emphasize learning goals [ 26 ]. Another common point of conflict among teachers is answer verification. Most teachers report that ChatGPT yielded a different and inaccurate response compared to traditional searches, despite its speed and efficiency [ 27 ]. Interestingly, from that same research, other teachers report that this might be just because of poor prompt generation. Nonetheless, both perspectives recognize that while ChatGPT may be useful for lesson plans and instructional materials, it is best treated as a supplement, not a replacement for teachers’ work and materials. Other scholars from Muntinlupa, notably those in De La Salle Zobel, point out that banning ChatGPT within the classroom is not helpful at all [ 28 ]. According to them, teaching standards could actually be increased, given that both instructors and learners now have access to ChatGPT. The general local consensus within the academic community is that these technologies should be monitored and supervised, given their inevitable entry to the educational sector, instead of being outright banned. While existing research underscores both the promise and the pitfalls of ChatGPT within the Philippine context, much less is known about the particularities of these learning materials. No work significantly goes into detail about PowerPoint slides, the rubrics, worksheets, or even the feedback of college educators. Given the country’s persistent digital divide and the limited scholarship on how cultural and organizational features of local higher education shape AI use, there remains a crucial gap in understanding how teachers actually negotiate ChatGPT’s promises and limitations in practice. To address this, our study turns to the lived experiences of college teachers, asking how they first encountered ChatGPT, what kinds of materials they create with it, how they adapt its outputs to their classrooms, and what ethical, professional, and creative questions emerge in the process. METHODOLOGY Research Design We employed a qualitative descriptive research design to understand how faculty members experienced and described their use of ChatGPT in preparing instructional materials. The study focused on capturing the personal reflections and reasoning of the participants, with an emphasis on presenting their voices meaningfully. Research Setting The research was conducted at a private university in Manila, Philippines. The institutional environment, known for promoting innovation and engineering education, provided a relevant setting for exploring how academic personnel interact with emerging digital tools. Participants The study involved nine tertiary-level faculty members. The participants’ ages ranged from 25 to 54 years, with an average age of approximately 45 years. Their teaching experience ranged from 2 to 32 years, averaging about 21 years. Four participants held PhDs, while the remaining five held Master’s degrees. The group included a mix of male and female faculty members. All participants had been using ChatGPT in their teaching for 1 to 3 years, with an average use of about 1.7 years. They first learned about ChatGPT through colleagues, seminars, relatives, media promotions, or university encouragement. Their motivations for using the tool included saving time in preparing materials, improving content creation efficiency, supporting professional development, and promoting responsible AI integration in teaching. Table 1 shows the participant profile. Table 1 Participant Demographics Name Age Work Experience Degree Length of ChatGPT Use How They Learned About ChatGPT Motivation for Using It Theo 50 30 PhD 2 yrs Colleagues; online sources To save time preparing materials Yam 25 2 MS 3 yrs Media and public promotion Fast, helpful tool for content creation Thesa 46 25 PhD 1 yr Colleagues; seminar/workshop Encouraged to explore AI in teaching Eric 53 25 MS 3 yrs Relatives; online sources Easier information access and presentations Elie 48 25 MS 1 yr Colleagues; relatives University encouraged AI use in teaching Nette 54 32 MS 3 yrs University seminars/training Professional development Len 49 27 PhD 1 yr Colleagues; relatives Easier information access and presentations Flor 52 31 PhD 1 yr Colleagues; seminar/workshop To promote responsible AI use to students JM 29 3 MS 1 yr University seminars/training University encouraged AI use in teaching Data Collection Instead of structured or face-to-face interviews, data were collected using a Google Form. The form contained open-ended questions (see Table 2 ), written in English, that aimed to explore the participants’ experiences, reflections, and viewpoints about their use of ChatGPT. The questions encouraged narrative responses, allowing participants to explain, describe, or give examples freely. Participants had the option to answer in either English or Filipino, depending on which language allowed them to express their thoughts more clearly and comfortably. This approach honored the participants’ linguistic agency and helped capture richer, more authentic responses. The Google Form link was disseminated privately, and responses were gathered during July to August 2025. Table 2 Interview Protocol # Question 1 How did you first learn about ChatGPT, and what led you to use it for creating educational materials? 2 What types of educational materials have you produced using ChatGPT? 3 How do you evaluate and adapt ChatGPT’s output to fit your subject matter or student needs? 4 How has using ChatGPT affected your creativity when designing educational materials? 5 Can you share a specific instance when ChatGPT helped you quickly create or revise a teaching material? 6 How do you feel about sharing with colleagues that you use ChatGPT for material preparation? 7 Have your students ever commented on or questioned the materials you created with ChatGPT? 8 What ethical considerations come to mind when using ChatGPT for generating educational martials? 9 How do you maintain your teaching voice or style when working with AI-generated/assisted content? Data Analysis The responses collected through the Google Form were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step thematic analysis [ 29 ], focusing on both the semantic content of participants’ statements and the contextual nuances of how they expressed their experiences with ChatGPT. The analysis began with familiarization, where all responses were read multiple times to note recurring ideas and salient statements. Initial coding followed, labeling meaningful phrases and patterns. Related codes were then grouped into preliminary themes, which were reviewed across the dataset for coherence and consistency. Each theme was clearly defined and named to reflect its significance in understanding faculty integration of AI into developing educational materials, and the final narrative synthesis incorporated participant phrases to maintain authenticity and capture both what participants experienced and how they interpreted the role of ChatGPT in their instructional work. Ethical Considerations The study complied with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173). Before accessing the Google Form, participants were shown a digital informed consent section, which clearly stated: the purpose of the study, that participation was voluntary, that responses could be withdrawn upon request, and that all identifying information would be kept confidential. No participant was pressured to join, and no professional advantage or disadvantage was involved in participation. Pseudonyms were used in reporting the findings unless the participant explicitly permitted the use of their real identity. All response data were securely stored in a password-protected account. Limitations This study has several limitations. The sample was limited to nine tertiary-level faculty members from a single school at Mapúa University, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings. Data were collected through a self-administered Google Form, relying on participants’ willingness and ability to articulate their experiences. Additionally, the study relied on self-reported practices, without direct observation of ChatGPT use in teaching. Despite these limitations, the study remains valuable and insightful, as it provides rich qualitative data on faculty perceptions, motivations, and strategies in integrating AI tools into developing educational materials, offering practical guidance for future AI-assisted teaching initiatives and professional development. RESULTS The college teachers who participated in this study integrated ChatGPT into their professional routines, transforming how they developed educational materials. Table 1 synthesizes the qualitative results. Table 3 Themes, Codes, and Illustrative Quotes Theme Definition Codes Illustrative Quotes Material Generation & Scope The specific instructional content created or assisted by ChatGPT and how it was used in teaching practice. Resource diversity; structural planning; technical formatting; assessment utility “I use ChatGPT to create quizzes that check my students’ understanding of key chemistry concepts. I also generate PowerPoint slides to present lessons more clearly and rubrics...” (Theo) Rigorous Adaptation Mechanics The specific, actionable steps taken by teachers to verify accuracy, align content to pedagogical goals, and technically refine AI output. Accuracy verification; goal alignment; iterative prompting; technical conditioning “Most of the time it hallucinates. Knowing and understanding the subject matter help counter check whatever the AI is delivering. I check its answer through books and journal articles...” (Len) Impact on Professional Practice The observed effects of using ChatGPT on teacher efficiency and the expansion or enhancement of their creative capacity in developing content. Efficiency gains; creative expansion; idea generation “It reshaped and enhanced my creativity since it suggests new ideas that adapts to the current learners like Gen Z.” (Thesa) Disclosure, Ethics, and Voice The teachers’ comfort level with sharing AI use, the ethical considerations they addressed, and the techniques used to preserve their personal teaching style. Transparency comfort; ethical mitigation; personal voice maintenance; stylistic revision “I usually edit the response for my own style of teaching. ChatGPT’s style is generic and sometimes lack the necessary warmth of teaching.” (Eric) Material Generation and Scope College teachers leveraged ChatGPT to generate a spectrum of instructional resources used to support both core lecturing and complex assessment. Theo, for example, detailed the breadth of his material creation: “I used ChatGPT to create quizzes that check my students’ understanding of key chemistry concepts. I also generate PowerPoint slides to present lessons more clearly and rubrics to guide student performance on assignments. In addition, I develop worksheets and learning tasks...” He confirmed that these materials were used “directly in class or shared through our learning platform to support both lectures and independent study.” Similarly, Yam focused on “lesson plans, [presentations], rubrics, and worksheets”. For specialized assessment, JM used ChatGPT to generate “exam questions, variations of exam questions, feedback to students, [and] rubric creation.” Eric highlighted a technical capability crucial to his subject: “LaTeX conversion in math equations,” which he used to create “more [formula-based] seatworks and exams”. Flor used ChatGPT to create detailed evaluation forms with rubrics for presentations, noting that she “had to know what the typical response will be if that will be required from the students.” Len also noted that ChatGPT assisted with “the way topics should be explained to students [so that they are encouraged] to study.” Rigorous Adaptation Mechanics A universally shared finding was that teachers never used AI output without rigorous manual verification and adaptation, viewing ChatGPT as a framework requiring expert human mediation. Given the technical fields, verification was paramount. Theo stressed, “Whenever I receive output from ChatGPT, I review the content for accuracy, especially since chemistry topics require precision in formulas and explanations.” This was vital because ChatGPT was known to make errors. Len summarized this vigilance: “I evaluate ChatGPT outputs by assessing the answers if they are updated and correct. Most of the time it hallucinates. Knowing and understanding the subject matter helps counter check whatever the AI is delivering. I check its answers through books and journal articles related to the topic.” The generic AI output was then adjusted to fit specific course structures. Theo reported that he adjusted the tone and difficulty level “depending on whether the material is for first-year or advanced students.” When the initial results were insufficient, teachers refined their prompts. Thesa recounted that the initial output for a problem-based task was “too general,” leading her to realize, “I need to input a more direct and specific prompt.” Flor described her iterative process: “I manually check the output of ChatGPT, refine the command I use, and repeat the process to [tailor-fit] the results to my requirement.” Some participants employed technical strategies to condition the model’s knowledge. Eric described a preparatory strategy: “I usually train first ChatGPT to align with PowerPoint content... I input my materials first for ChatGPT to understand the subject matter.” JM developed a protocol to manage assessment item generation: “When I input a question, I tell ‘do not answer it’. Instead, make variations for the question under the same topic.” Impact on Professional Practice Participants reported that AI provided an professional advantage by acting as a catalyst for efficiency and creativity. The time savings were immediate and substantial. Theo recounted: “What would normally take me several hours was done in less than one hour with AI support. This efficiency allowed me to focus more on planning class discussions and problem-solving activities.” Eric reported structural efficiency gains, noting that using ChatGPT for paraphrasing and generating math equations led to “faster and [well-formatted] documents and PowerPoints.” Len likewise found that the time saved allowed her to “prepare more things than the usual.” The influence on creativity was consistently positive. Theo described ChatGPT as expanding possibilities by suggesting new approaches. Thesa felt it “reshaped and enhanced” her creativity because ChatGPT “suggests new ideas that [adapt] to the current learners (Gen Z).” Elie confirmed that it “enhances my creativity by showing me more ways of doing things.” Disclosure, Ethics, and Voice College teachers demonstrated a high level of comfort with transparency and a strong focus on ethical oversight, which they maintained through deliberate strategies. Many teachers were comfortable disclosing their AI use because the practice was institutionally supported. JM indicated that his use “is encouraged by the dean and the university admins and president.” Theo expressed that he views ChatGPT as “a legitimate tool for improving teaching efficiency.” Disclosure was formalized. Flor noted that instructors were “required to say if we used ChatGPT in the materials being presented.” Elie observed that students responded positively, recognizing instructors’ use of contemporary technology. Teachers prioritized academic integrity by maintaining authorship and reviewing outputs carefully. Flor emphasized, “Academic integrity is a paramount consideration. AI tools or ChatGPT should only be an aid in teaching.” Thesa stated that ethical concerns were minimized “as long as the ChatGPT output is verified/validated and reviewed, and as well as citing proper references.” Maintaining a personal teaching voice was achieved through revision and adaptation. Theo ensured that he “structure[d] tasks in the way my students are used to,” maintaining continuity. Len confirmed that the final product always reflected her expertise: “At the end of the day, AI only responds to the prompts I provide, and it is my voice that truly emerges in the way I frame and guide those prompts.” DISCUSSION Our findings illustrate that the integration of ChatGPT by college teachers was not a passive adoption but, rather, an active, strategic exercise. First, in terms of mitigating risk, we found that teachers immediately addressed the flaws cited in educational literature. Specifically, while studies caution that AI-generated curricula can be incomplete or risk inserting hallucinated information [ 30 ], college teachers primarily used ChatGPT for structural planning (e.g., outlines, syllabi) and treated its output as a scaffold. Consequently, this was evidenced by the verification against established academic sources (e.g., textbooks, journal articles), a crucial step validating the caution against potentially inaccurate responses [ 27 ]. The risk of a one-size-fits-all approach, which fails to address student diversity [ 25 ], was directly countered by targeted customization. We found that teachers would condition ChatGPT by inputting subject-specific course materials; subsequently, they would tailor content by adjusting tone and difficulty levels and adding specific contextual examples (e.g., engineering applications). Therefore, this hands-on approach confirms that college teachers adopted personalized prompt generation and tailoring. This ensures the final resources were aligned with their specific pedagogical goals. Our findings underscore the critical role of teachers in ensuring the relevance and quality of assessments. Consistent with Vetrivel et al. [ 31 ], AI can support educators in effectively evaluating higher-order thinking skills and the real-world application of knowledge. In our study, college instructors were able to generate diverse versions of exam questions and complex formats, including LaTeX-based math equations. However, accomplishing this required careful technical control, achieved through restricted prompts (e.g., instructing the AI to generate variations only, not answers) and iterative refinement of commands. Additionally, teachers used ChatGPT to enrich and expand assessment mechanisms. They created detailed rubrics and evaluation forms where they added new criteria not previously considered. This accentuates how ChatGPT’s utility extended beyond basic generation, supporting the finding that ChatGPT can make rubrics more descriptive [ 19 ]. Meanwhile, we found that the efficiency gains were dramatic, with teachers reporting substantial time savings (e.g., reducing multi-hour tasks to minutes). This finding strongly affirms the efficiency and ideation capabilities noted by Japoshvili-Ghvinashvili & Suleman [ 21 ]. Crucially, this saved time was not used to reduce workload but to enhance pedagogical capacity, enabling teachers to focus on higher-value tasks like planning class discussions and problem-solving activities. Moreover, ChatGPT acted as a catalyst for creativity. It helped teachers expand their options for framing content and adapting materials to newer generations of learners. Although the potential for overreliance exists [ 32 , 22 ], teachers actively used the AI to reshape their creative process, thereby leveraging its strengths without sacrificing their professional agency. Finally, we found that teachers maintained high ethical confidence through practices of transparency and supervision. Consequently, disclosure was frequent and comfortable, as the use of AI was institutionally encouraged and integrated, validating the local consensus that the technology should be monitored and supervised rather than banned [ 28 ]. The preservation of the personal teaching voice was a key mechanism: teachers corrected the AI's generic tone by performing stylistic customization, adding their own examples, and ensuring the structure aligned with student expectations. In short, ChatGPT provided the structure, yet the teacher’s creativity emerged in how they framed and guided the prompts. This makes the final material remained culturally and relationally authentic to the classroom and confirms that the teacher's professional identity remains the core driver of quality of educational materials. IMPLICATIONS Theoretical Implications Our findings carry important implications for theory, practice, policy, and future research. Theoretically, we show that AI integration in education is most effective when guided by deliberate teacher oversight rather than passive adoption. This supports models of human-AI collaboration [ 33 ] while challenging assumptions that AI alone can produce high-quality instructional materials. By highlighting verification and customization, we contribute new perspectives to research on AI-assisted educational materials development. Practical Implications Our qualitative findings revealed how teachers strategically use AI to enhance educational materials in their field while maintaining control over content, quality, and pedagogy. Because of these insights, we crafted the TEACH framework (see Table 4 ). This offers a structured approach for integrating AI into educational materials development responsibly and effectively. Practically, it provides actionable guidance for educators to save time on routine tasks. We suggest that institutions adopt TEACH to support teacher agency, standardize AI-generated/assisted material development, and enhance instructional effectiveness. Table 4 Practical Steps for Doing TEACH Framework Step Action What the Teacher Does Direct Link to Findings T: Target the Purpose Define the exact instructional function. Decide: Is the AI output for a quiz, lesson explanation, rubric, worksheet, discussion prompt, etc.? Material Generation & Scope E: Expand Resources with AI Generate first drafts, examples, rephrasings, or variations. Use prompts to create or adapt slides, exams, feedback, or activity ideas. Efficiency & Creative Expansion A: Assess Accuracy Fact-check and compare with textbooks, journal articles, or official standards. Correct misconceptions, rewrite formulas, adjust complexity. Rigorous Adaptation Mechanics C: Customize for Context Edit tone, teaching style, level of difficulty, student background relevance. Personalize so it sounds like you, matches your pedagogy, and fits your student group. Disclosure, Ethics, and Voice H: Highlight Ethical and Responsible Use Be transparent about AI assistance and promote responsible use. Clarify to students when a tool supported the material; encourage ethical learning practices. Disclosure, Ethics, and Voice Practical Teacher Guide This TEACH framework is inspired and can be supplemented by Giray’s (2025) Human-AI-Human framework [ 34 ], which emphasizes the collaborative cycle between the human, AI, and the human again to ensure high-quality, ethical, and contextually relevant learning materials. Phase 1: HUMAN (Planning Before AI) Before engaging AI, teachers reflect on the instructional purpose. Ask yourself: Why do I need this material? Who are my learners in terms of year level, readiness, and interests? What format is required: a worksheet, slide deck, problem set, rubric, or teaching script? The output of this phase is a clear instructional intent that will guide the AI interaction. Phase 2: AI (Drafting and Expansion) With instructional goals in place, AI can be used to draft content and expand resources. Effective prompts specify the topic, level, format, tone, and learning objective or standard. For example: “Create 8 beginner-level stoichiometry problems for first-year BS Chemistry students. Include step-by-step solutions. Use clear and student-friendly language.” If the AI output is too generic, iterate rather than accepting the first draft. AI serves as a creative and efficiency-enhancing partner, generating material that can then be refined by the teacher. Phase 3: HUMAN (Verification and Personalization) In the final human phase, teachers ensure that AI-generated materials are accurate, relevant, and ethically sound by carefully reviewing and refining the content. This includes checking facts against textbooks, journal articles, or official standards, adjusting the difficulty to match student readiness, rewriting the material to reflect their personal teaching voice and style, and deciding when and how to disclose AI assistance to maintain transparency and promote responsible use. The outcome of this iterative process is a high-quality, teacher-aligned learning resource that combines the efficiency and creativity of AI with the pedagogical judgment and ethical responsibility of the teacher. Future Research Our study identifies opportunities for future research. We recognize that questions remain about the long-term effects of AI on pedagogical creativity and learning outcomes. We encourage further studies to explore discipline-specific applications, compare the effectiveness of different AI tools, and investigate strategies for scaling frameworks like TEACH (see Fig. 1 ) across diverse educational contexts. Additionally, we see value in examining how AI reshapes teacher workflows and professional identity over time. CONCLUSION In this study, we found that ChatGPT serves as a powerful, yet supplementary, tool in college teachers’ workflows, enhancing both efficiency and creativity in educational material development. We observed that the tool expedited the creation of quizzes, worksheets, rubrics, lesson slides, and LaTeX-formatted content, reducing tasks that traditionally took hours to minutes. Importantly, we found that teachers never used AI outputs uncritically; they employed rigorous adaptation processes, including accuracy verification, contextual customization, and iterative prompt refinement, to ensure materials were pedagogically sound and relevant to student needs. We also observed that ChatGPT expanded creative possibilities, helping teacher generate diverse ideas while retaining their professional voice and teaching style. Ethical transparency emerged as a critical practice, with teachers disclosing AI use and maintaining accountability for all materials. Overall, we conclude that the benefits of AI integration in educational material development are maximized when guided by deliberate teacher oversight. These results inform the TEACH framework, which is a practical guide to interact with ChatGPT so it can support high-quality, contextually relevant educational materials. Declarations Ethics approval The research was conducted with the knowledge and ethical approval of the corresponding author’s institution: Mapúa University dated June 21, 2025. All procedures involving human participants were performed in accordance with institutional guidelines and recognized ethical standards. Compliance with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 ensured lawful data handling. Participation was voluntary, and respondents were informed of their right to withdraw at any time. No identifying information was collected, and all data were stored in a password-protected database accessible only to the research team. These safeguards protected participants’ privacy, autonomy, and confidentiality. Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Consent to publish Not applicable. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Conflict of Interest We declare no conflict of interest. Employment There are no employment financial interest losses or gains to declare either current or previous for any of the authors. Funding We received no internal or external funding. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no competing interests. Data Availability The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Employment There are no employment financial interest losses or gains to declare either current or previous for any of the authors Funding The authors received no internal or external funding. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no competing interests. Informed consent Participants were informed about the study’s procedures, risks, benefits, and other aspects before their participation. Only those who gave their consent were allowed to participate in the research. Authors’ contributions Louie led the conceptualization, writing, analysis, manuscript development, critical revisions, and overall direction of the study. Ruth and Bonnin contributed significantly to the data gathering, literature review, analysis, and manuscript development. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Disclosure statement The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Including financial and non-financial interests. Declaration of generative AI use ChatGPT 4.0 was used solely for proofreading and enhancing the language of this work. It did not contribute to the development of ideas, arguments, or analysis. The authors take full responsibility for the content and originality of the manuscript. References Rospigliosi P. Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: What questions should we ask of ChatGPT? Interact Learn Environ. 2023;31(1):1–3. 10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191 . Baidoo-Anu D, Ansah L. Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. J AI. 2023;7(1):52–62. 10.61969/jai.1337500 . Newton P, Xiromeriti M. ChatGPT performance on multiple choice question examinations in higher education: A pragmatic scoping review. Assess Eval High Educ. 2024;49(6):1–18. 10.1080/02602938.2023.2299059 . Nikolic S, Daniel S, Haque R, Belkina M, Hassan G, Grundy S, et al. ChatGPT versus engineering education assessment: A multidisciplinary and multi-institutional benchmarking and analysis of this generative artificial intelligence tool to investigate assessment integrity. Eur J Eng Educ. 2023;48(4):1–56. 10.1080/03043797.2023.2213169 . Halaweh M. ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemp Educ Technol. 2023;15(2). 10.30935/cedtech/13036 . Kasneci E, Sessler K, Küchemann S, Bannert M, Dementieva D, Fischer F, et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learn Individ Differ. 2023;103:102274. 10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 . Eager B, Brunton R. Prompting higher education towards AI-augmented teaching and learning practice. J Univ Teach Learn Pract. 2023;20(5). 10.53761/1.20.5.02 . Kiryakova G, Angelova N. ChatGPT—A challenging tool for the university professors in their teaching practice. Educ Sci. 2023;13(10):1056. 10.3390/educsci13101056 . Zhai C, Wibowo S, Li LD. The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: A systematic review. Smart Learn Environ. 2024;11(28):1–37. 10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7 . Azaria A, Azoulay R, Reches S. ChatGPT is a remarkable tool—For experts. Data Intell. 2023;6(1):1–49. 10.1162/dint_a_00235 . Ogugua D, Yoon SN, Lee D. Academic integrity in a digital era: Should the use of ChatGPT be banned in schools? Glob Bus Finance Rev. 2023;28(7):1–10. 10.17549/gbfr.2023.28.7.1 . Estrellado CJ, Miranda JC. Artificial intelligence in the Philippine educational context: Circumspection and future inquiries. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2023;13(5). 10.29322/IJSRP.13.05.2023.p13745 . Espartinez AS. Between innovation and tradition: A narrative inquiry of students’ and teachers’ experiences with ChatGPT in Philippine higher education. Soc Sci. 2025;14(6):359. 10.3390/socsci14060359 . Karaman MR, Göksu İ. Are lesson plans created by ChatGPT more effective? An experimental study. Int J Technol Educ. 2024;7(1):107–27. 10.46328/ijte.607 . Kalenda PJ, Rath L, Heidt MA, Wright A. Pre-service teacher perceptions of ChatGPT for lesson plan generation. J Educ Technol Syst. 2024;53(3). 10.1177/00472395241301388 . Davis R, Lee YJ. Prompt: ChatGPT, create my course. please! Educ Sci. 2023;14(1):24. 10.3390/educsci14010024 . Ho B, Lau KK, Tin G, Lee E, Kulkarni D, Seow CS, ChatGPT versus human in generating medical graduate exam multiple choice questions—A multinational prospective study (Hong, Kong SAR et al. Singapore, Ireland, and the United Kingdom). PLOS ONE. 2023;18(8). 10.1371/journal.pone.0290691 Yavuz Selim Kıyak. A ChatGPT prompt for writing case-based multiple-choice questions. Rev Esp Educ Médica. 2023;4(3). 10.6018/edumed.587451 . Kahlow J. The alchemy of assessment and evaluation: From lead to gold. Arlington (TX): Mavs Open; 2024. Dhamija A, Dhamija D. View of understanding teachers’ perspectives on ChatGPT-generated assignments in higher education. J Interdiscip Stud Educ. 2025;14(1). 10.32674/ptf9yd75 . Japoshvili-Ghvinashvili M, Suleman N. View of assisting ELT teachers: Designing activities for the use of ChatGPT in teaching and learning. Pak J Multidiscip Innov. 2025;2(1):24–35. 10.59075/pjmi.v2i1.219 . Karanjakwut C, Charunsri K. Transforming AI chatbots for a brainstorming teaching technique of process writing. Malays Online J Educ Technol. 2025;13(1):1–18. 10.52380/mojet.2025.13.1.559 . Altamimi AB. Effectiveness of ChatGPT in essay autograding. In:, Computing. Electronics & Communications Engineering. 2023. 10.1109/iccece59400.2023.10238541 Quah B, Zheng L, Jie T, Yong CW, Islam I. Reliability of ChatGPT in automated essay scoring for dental undergraduate examinations. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1). 10.1186/s12909-024-05881-6 . Magtoto G, Bagnol F, Abunda R. ChatGPT—A threat or an aid in teaching and learning. Int J Open Distance E-Learn. 2024;9(2). 10.58887/ijodel.v9i2.250 . Hatmanto ED, Pasandalan SNB, Rahmawati F, Sorohiti M. Empowering creative education: Applying ChatGPT for enhancing student engagement in senior teacher-driven instructional design in the Philippines. E3S Web Conf. 2024;570(03007). 10.1051/e3sconf/202457003007 Ampo WMG, Ayuban AR, Avellaneda SLA, Go DT. Exploring teachers’ lived experiences in integrating ChatGPT in classroom practices. Int J Educ Emerg Pract. 2025;1(1):17–28. 10.63236/injeep.1.1.2 . Torrato JB, Pillar GA, Robledo DAR, Aguja SE, Prudente MS. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices on ChatGPT: Perspectives from students and teachers of De La Salle Santiago Zobel School. In: Proceedings of the 2024 15th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning. 2024. pp. 107–116. 10.1145/3670013.3670058 Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa . Giray L. ChatGPT references unveiled: Distinguishing the reliable from the fake. Internet Ref Serv Q. 2023;28(1):9–18. 10.1080/10875301.2023.2265369 . Vetrivel SC, Vidhyapriya P, Arun VP. The role of AI in transforming assessment practices in education. In: Keeley KL, editor. AI applications and strategies in teacher education. Hershey (PA): IGI Global; 2025. pp. 43–70. 10.4018/979-8-3693-5443-8.ch003 . Giray L. Negative effects of generative AI on researchers: Publishing addiction, Dunning-Kruger effect and skill erosion. J Appl Learn Teach. 2024;7(2):398–405. 10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.38 . Gupta P, Nguyen TN, Gonzalez C, Woolley AW. Fostering collective intelligence in human–AI collaboration: Laying the groundwork for COHUMAIN. Top Cogn Sci. 2025;17(2):189–216. 10.1111/tops.12679 . Giray L. When using AI in scientific research: Start with human, end with human. TechTrends. 2025. 10.1007/s11528-025-01132-7 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 20 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 11 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 23 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 19 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 28 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 28 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 27 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8984458","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":610569719,"identity":"35bf2441-667e-48b5-a8ff-22e4d4a43ece","order_by":0,"name":"Louie Giray","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Mapúa University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Louie","middleName":"","lastName":"Giray","suffix":""},{"id":610569723,"identity":"19c0d6ab-82b3-4ce8-b4f4-f9b676407859","order_by":1,"name":"Ruth Aquino","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Mapua University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ruth","middleName":"","lastName":"Aquino","suffix":""},{"id":610569734,"identity":"44f1c9e8-3de0-498d-b5b4-b21154bcd69c","order_by":2,"name":"Mark Bonnin Jara","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of the Philippines Los Baños","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mark","middleName":"Bonnin","lastName":"Jara","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-27 06:55:53","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8984458/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8984458/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105350804,"identity":"941555d2-0680-46f2-91ef-ed13bfa5a5c4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-25 05:50:55","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":406562,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTEACH Framework\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8984458/v1/22accf958bed86e5c89f3a5f.jpeg"},{"id":105565475,"identity":"d8270cdd-5c1b-4694-8636-1a1ccf3d7520","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:53:22","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1192374,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8984458/v1/8e7350ef-eedf-4e36-89c9-2b4ffdeba187.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Qualitative Analysis of College Teachers’ Practices Using ChatGPT to Develop Educational Materials and the Introduction of the TEACH Framework for Effective AI Integration","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eChatGPT\u0026rsquo;s use within the classroom is as diverse as its language-processing abilities. Its capacity to keep track of previous conversations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e] and generate personalized prompts for formative assessment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e] helps explain why many college students increasingly turn to the tool to support their understanding of course content. The famous Large Language Model (LLM) has even passed standardized tests that are used to qualify the licensure of doctors, lawyers, scientists, and engineers abroad [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. No exception to this compulsion is a number of college teachers who integrate ChatGPT into easing their daily workloads: be it generating emails, scheduling, or refining the course\u0026rsquo;s content [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Such diverse applications raise important questions about how educators themselves evaluate and adapt the tool\u0026rsquo;s output to serve their students\u0026rsquo; needs, a concern this study directly seeks to explore.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe prominence of ChatGPT within the education sector is met with varied opinions. For instance, some scholars are skeptical about privacy, security, environmental, and ethical concerns [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], while some are ready to push for its implementation to support time-consuming teaching activities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Others are quick to point out that ChatGPT makes the education sector lenient and erodes critical thinking [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], whereas some argue that the tool is revolutionary and remarkable for experts in their respective fields [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Top universities from the United Kingdom, including Oxford and Cambridge, have banned the use of ChatGPT for assessments, while schools in Los Angeles have resorted to completely blocking OpenAI\u0026rsquo;s sites for the entire school network [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Philippines, highlighted by a large access gap to digital technologies such as ChatGPT, provides fertile areas for inquiry. In comparison to the 80% of the population with Internet access among urban centers, only 40% of rural areas are reported to have access to the Internet [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. This is largely interesting because the Philippines remains one of the top 5 countries with the most users of the website despite this divide [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Alongside this, there is a significant void amongst studies that factor in how the unique cultural and organizational features of the Philippine Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) affect its deployment, implementation, and use. Addressing this gap is essential to understanding not only the role ChatGPT plays in shaping teaching practices in the country but also how educators themselves negotiate its promises and limitations within their professional contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe goal of this paper is to investigate how different college teachers use ChatGPT to develop educational materials. Specifically, it focuses on analyzing the testimonies and lived experiences of college teachers, highlighting how the different teachers evaluate and adapt ChatGPT\u0026rsquo;s output to fit their students\u0026rsquo; needs.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"LITERATURE REVIEW","content":"\u003cp\u003eExisting research on ChatGPT in education reveals a wide range of perspectives, from its potential to streamline instructional design to its risks of diminishing academic rigor. We first begin with a discussion of how ChatGPT is used in lesson planning and syllabus design. Second, we discuss its applications in preparing assessments such as quizzes and rubrics. Then, we proceed to a brief discussion of its role in creative ideation and brainstorming activities. Lastly, we examine its use in automating evaluation and the broader debates surrounding ChatGPT integration in the Philippine context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn an experimental study conducted in Turkey, researchers found that lesson plans that were prepared using ChatGPT yielded better academic results in math lessons (\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003ed\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.268\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e) compared to the normal lesson plans in the control group [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. However, another study points out that lesson plans created by ChatGPT were often \u0026ldquo;incomplete\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;lacking in necessary elements\u0026rdquo;, lacking in detail and thus being harder for a substitute teacher to pick up and use [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Several limitations were also revealed when ChatGPT was made to create an entire course syllabus and the program designed irrelevant lessons or hallucinated information based on fabricated data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. In short, the lesson plans created by ChatGPT were reported to become a \u0026ldquo;one-size-fits-all\u0026rdquo; that cannot adequately address the linguistic and cultural diversity one typically finds in a classroom.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther teachers also use ChatGPT to help prepare quizzes or assessments. In a study comparing the multiple-choice questions written by ChatGPT to university professoriate staff for graduate medical examinations, no significant decrease in quality aside from the domain of relevance was found [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. However, other studies also highlight that the teacher\u0026rsquo;s role is decisive in creating prompts for ChatGPT to ensure the quality of these assessments, emphasizing the need for further revision and clarification once a teacher gives a specific source material [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, ChatGPT\u0026rsquo;s processing capabilities can also be extended to rubrics. Teachers can use the program to create a table that immediately assigns numerical values to a specific set of criteria or to make an already established rubric more descriptive than it already is [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Some teachers are impressed with the quality of the rubrics that ChatGPT has generated, with some students even reporting that they know how to tackle or handle an assignment better because of clearly defined instructions and guidelines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth teachers and students can also use ChatGPT for creative ideation or brainstorming. Specifically, generating activities with the help of ChatGPT, which focused on refining language and content-based skills, were shown to have positive results, increasing student engagement and motivation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite AI-driven brainstorming outperforming conventional idea generation methods by a small margin, students are quick to express overreliance as the biggest challenge in its use [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerhaps what sparked the most discussion amongst scholars was how ChatGPT can be used to automate evaluation. Some studies show that ChatGPT demonstrates notable competency in grading written essays, with remarkable levels of inter-rater consistency compared to traditional human grading methods [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Interestingly, other scholars within dental education point out that ChatGPT\u0026rsquo;s grading tended to be stricter, incapable of penalizing entire paragraphs that have no direct relevance to the task or have falsified content [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. As such, most teachers still feel the need to establish clear rubrics given that GPT-4 in its present state cannot be used as a standalone grading tool.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the Philippine context, discussions on ChatGPT integration echo both the optimism and caution seen in global studies. While the tool is increasingly recognized for its potential to enrich student learning and foster confidence in subjects such as mathematics and science, concerns persist about its broader implications for education. Scholars insist that ChatGPT must be used in moderation, with teachers guiding students through meaningful discussions and activities that build critical, social, and emotional skills [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. Accordingly, other scholars report that techniques such as personalized prompt generation, scaffolded inquiry, and multimodal expression may help maximize ChatGPT's transformative capacity within the Philippines, provided they are integrated within curriculum frameworks that already emphasize learning goals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother common point of conflict among teachers is answer verification. Most teachers report that ChatGPT yielded a different and inaccurate response compared to traditional searches, despite its speed and efficiency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Interestingly, from that same research, other teachers report that this might be just because of poor prompt generation. Nonetheless, both perspectives recognize that while ChatGPT may be useful for lesson plans and instructional materials, it is best treated as a supplement, not a replacement for teachers\u0026rsquo; work and materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther scholars from Muntinlupa, notably those in De La Salle Zobel, point out that banning ChatGPT within the classroom is not helpful at all [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. According to them, teaching standards could actually be increased, given that both instructors and learners now have access to ChatGPT. The general local consensus within the academic community is that these technologies should be monitored and supervised, given their inevitable entry to the educational sector, instead of being outright banned.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile existing research underscores both the promise and the pitfalls of ChatGPT within the Philippine context, much less is known about the particularities of these learning materials. No work significantly goes into detail about PowerPoint slides, the rubrics, worksheets, or even the feedback of college educators. Given the country\u0026rsquo;s persistent digital divide and the limited scholarship on how cultural and organizational features of local higher education shape AI use, there remains a crucial gap in understanding how teachers actually negotiate ChatGPT\u0026rsquo;s promises and limitations in practice. To address this, our study turns to the lived experiences of college teachers, asking how they first encountered ChatGPT, what kinds of materials they create with it, how they adapt its outputs to their classrooms, and what ethical, professional, and creative questions emerge in the process.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch Design\u003c/b\u003e We employed a qualitative descriptive research design to understand how faculty members experienced and described their use of ChatGPT in preparing instructional materials. The study focused on capturing the personal reflections and reasoning of the participants, with an emphasis on presenting their voices meaningfully.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eResearch Setting\u003c/b\u003e The research was conducted at a private university in Manila, Philippines. The institutional environment, known for promoting innovation and engineering education, provided a relevant setting for exploring how academic personnel interact with emerging digital tools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eParticipants\u003c/b\u003e The study involved nine tertiary-level faculty members. The participants\u0026rsquo; ages ranged from 25 to 54 years, with an average age of approximately 45 years. Their teaching experience ranged from 2 to 32 years, averaging about 21 years. Four participants held PhDs, while the remaining five held Master\u0026rsquo;s degrees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe group included a mix of male and female faculty members. All participants had been using ChatGPT in their teaching for 1 to 3 years, with an average use of about 1.7 years. They first learned about ChatGPT through colleagues, seminars, relatives, media promotions, or university encouragement. Their motivations for using the tool included saving time in preparing materials, improving content creation efficiency, supporting professional development, and promoting responsible AI integration in teaching. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows the participant profile.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipant Demographics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eName\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWork Experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLength of ChatGPT Use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow They Learned About ChatGPT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivation for Using It\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 yrs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eColleagues; online sources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo save time preparing materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 yrs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedia and public promotion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFast, helpful tool for content creation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThesa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 yr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eColleagues; seminar/workshop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEncouraged to explore AI in teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEric\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 yrs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelatives; online sources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEasier information access and presentations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElie\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 yr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eColleagues; relatives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity encouraged AI use in teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNette\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 yrs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity seminars/training\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProfessional development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 yr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eColleagues; relatives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEasier information access and presentations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 yr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eColleagues; seminar/workshop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo promote responsible AI use to students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 yr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity seminars/training\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity encouraged AI use in teaching\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData Collection\u003c/b\u003e Instead of structured or face-to-face interviews, data were collected using a Google Form. The form contained open-ended questions (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), written in English, that aimed to explore the participants\u0026rsquo; experiences, reflections, and viewpoints about their use of ChatGPT. The questions encouraged narrative responses, allowing participants to explain, describe, or give examples freely.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Participants had the option to answer in either English or Filipino, depending on which language allowed them to express their thoughts more clearly and comfortably. This approach honored the participants\u0026rsquo; linguistic agency and helped capture richer, more authentic responses. The Google Form link was disseminated privately, and responses were gathered during July to August 2025.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Protocol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow did you first learn about ChatGPT, and what led you to use it for creating educational materials?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat types of educational materials have you produced using ChatGPT?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do you evaluate and adapt ChatGPT\u0026rsquo;s output to fit your subject matter or student needs?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow has using ChatGPT affected your creativity when designing educational materials?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCan you share a specific instance when ChatGPT helped you quickly create or revise a teaching material?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do you feel about sharing with colleagues that you use ChatGPT for material preparation?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHave your students ever commented on or questioned the materials you created with ChatGPT?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat ethical considerations come to mind when using ChatGPT for generating educational martials?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do you maintain your teaching voice or style when working with AI-generated/assisted content?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData Analysis\u003c/b\u003e The responses collected through the Google Form were analyzed using Braun and Clarke\u0026rsquo;s (2006) six-step thematic analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], focusing on both the semantic content of participants\u0026rsquo; statements and the contextual nuances of how they expressed their experiences with ChatGPT. The analysis began with familiarization, where all responses were read multiple times to note recurring ideas and salient statements. Initial coding followed, labeling meaningful phrases and patterns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelated codes were then grouped into preliminary themes, which were reviewed across the dataset for coherence and consistency. Each theme was clearly defined and named to reflect its significance in understanding faculty integration of AI into developing educational materials, and the final narrative synthesis incorporated participant phrases to maintain authenticity and capture both what participants experienced and how they interpreted the role of ChatGPT in their instructional work.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/b\u003e The study complied with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173). Before accessing the Google Form, participants were shown a digital informed consent section, which clearly stated: the purpose of the study, that participation was voluntary, that responses could be withdrawn upon request, and that all identifying information would be kept confidential.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo participant was pressured to join, and no professional advantage or disadvantage was involved in participation. Pseudonyms were used in reporting the findings unless the participant explicitly permitted the use of their real identity. All response data were securely stored in a password-protected account.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLimitations\u003c/b\u003e This study has several limitations. The sample was limited to nine tertiary-level faculty members from a single school at Map\u0026uacute;a University, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings. Data were collected through a self-administered Google Form, relying on participants\u0026rsquo; willingness and ability to articulate their experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the study relied on self-reported practices, without direct observation of ChatGPT use in teaching. Despite these limitations, the study remains valuable and insightful, as it provides rich qualitative data on faculty perceptions, motivations, and strategies in integrating AI tools into developing educational materials, offering practical guidance for future AI-assisted teaching initiatives and professional development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe college teachers who participated in this study integrated ChatGPT into their professional routines, transforming how they developed educational materials. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e synthesizes the qualitative results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThemes, Codes, and Illustrative Quotes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDefinition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCodes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIllustrative Quotes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaterial Generation \u0026amp; Scope\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe specific instructional content created or assisted by ChatGPT and how it was used in teaching practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResource diversity; structural planning; technical formatting; assessment utility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I use ChatGPT to create quizzes that check my students\u0026rsquo; understanding of key chemistry concepts. I also generate PowerPoint slides to present lessons more clearly and rubrics...\u0026rdquo; (Theo)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRigorous Adaptation Mechanics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe specific, actionable steps taken by teachers to verify accuracy, align content to pedagogical goals, and technically refine AI output.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccuracy verification; goal alignment; iterative prompting; technical conditioning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Most of the time it hallucinates. Knowing and understanding the subject matter help counter check whatever the AI is delivering. I check its answer through books and journal articles...\u0026rdquo; (Len)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImpact on Professional Practice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe observed effects of using ChatGPT on teacher efficiency and the expansion or enhancement of their creative capacity in developing content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEfficiency gains; creative expansion; idea generation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;It reshaped and enhanced my creativity since it suggests new ideas that adapts to the current learners like Gen Z.\u0026rdquo; (Thesa)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisclosure, Ethics, and Voice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe teachers\u0026rsquo; comfort level with sharing AI use, the ethical considerations they addressed, and the techniques used to preserve their personal teaching style.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransparency comfort; ethical mitigation; personal voice maintenance; stylistic revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I usually edit the response for my own style of teaching. ChatGPT\u0026rsquo;s style is generic and sometimes lack the necessary warmth of teaching.\u0026rdquo; (Eric)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMaterial Generation and Scope\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollege teachers leveraged ChatGPT to generate a spectrum of instructional resources used to support both core lecturing and complex assessment. Theo, for example, detailed the breadth of his material creation: \u0026ldquo;I used ChatGPT to create quizzes that check my students\u0026rsquo; understanding of key chemistry concepts. I also generate PowerPoint slides to present lessons more clearly and rubrics to guide student performance on assignments. In addition, I develop worksheets and learning tasks...\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHe confirmed that these materials were used \u0026ldquo;directly in class or shared through our learning platform to support both lectures and independent study.\u0026rdquo; Similarly, Yam focused on \u0026ldquo;lesson plans, [presentations], rubrics, and worksheets\u0026rdquo;. For specialized assessment, JM used ChatGPT to generate \u0026ldquo;exam questions, variations of exam questions, feedback to students, [and] rubric creation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEric highlighted a technical capability crucial to his subject: \u0026ldquo;LaTeX conversion in math equations,\u0026rdquo; which he used to create \u0026ldquo;more [formula-based] seatworks and exams\u0026rdquo;. Flor used ChatGPT to create detailed evaluation forms with rubrics for presentations, noting that she \u0026ldquo;had to know what the typical response will be if that will be required from the students.\u0026rdquo; Len also noted that ChatGPT assisted with \u0026ldquo;the way topics should be explained to students [so that they are encouraged] to study.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRigorous Adaptation Mechanics\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA universally shared finding was that teachers never used AI output without rigorous manual verification and adaptation, viewing ChatGPT as a framework requiring expert human mediation. Given the technical fields, verification was paramount. Theo stressed, \u0026ldquo;Whenever I receive output from ChatGPT, I review the content for accuracy, especially since chemistry topics require precision in formulas and explanations.\u0026rdquo; This was vital because ChatGPT was known to make errors. Len summarized this vigilance: \u0026ldquo;I evaluate ChatGPT outputs by assessing the answers if they are updated and correct. Most of the time it hallucinates. Knowing and understanding the subject matter helps counter check whatever the AI is delivering. I check its answers through books and journal articles related to the topic.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe generic AI output was then adjusted to fit specific course structures. Theo reported that he adjusted the tone and difficulty level \u0026ldquo;depending on whether the material is for first-year or advanced students.\u0026rdquo; When the initial results were insufficient, teachers refined their prompts. Thesa recounted that the initial output for a problem-based task was \u0026ldquo;too general,\u0026rdquo; leading her to realize, \u0026ldquo;I need to input a more direct and specific prompt.\u0026rdquo; Flor described her iterative process: \u0026ldquo;I manually check the output of ChatGPT, refine the command I use, and repeat the process to [tailor-fit] the results to my requirement.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome participants employed technical strategies to condition the model\u0026rsquo;s knowledge. Eric described a preparatory strategy: \u0026ldquo;I usually train first ChatGPT to align with PowerPoint content... I input my materials first for ChatGPT to understand the subject matter.\u0026rdquo; JM developed a protocol to manage assessment item generation: \u0026ldquo;When I input a question, I tell \u0026lsquo;do not answer it\u0026rsquo;. Instead, make variations for the question under the same topic.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eImpact on Professional Practice\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants reported that AI provided an professional advantage by acting as a catalyst for efficiency and creativity. The time savings were immediate and substantial. Theo recounted: \u0026ldquo;What would normally take me several hours was done in less than one hour with AI support. This efficiency allowed me to focus more on planning class discussions and problem-solving activities.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEric reported structural efficiency gains, noting that using ChatGPT for paraphrasing and generating math equations led to \u0026ldquo;faster and [well-formatted] documents and PowerPoints.\u0026rdquo; Len likewise found that the time saved allowed her to \u0026ldquo;prepare more things than the usual.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe influence on creativity was consistently positive. Theo described ChatGPT as expanding possibilities by suggesting new approaches. Thesa felt it \u0026ldquo;reshaped and enhanced\u0026rdquo; her creativity because ChatGPT \u0026ldquo;suggests new ideas that [adapt] to the current learners (Gen Z).\u0026rdquo; Elie confirmed that it \u0026ldquo;enhances my creativity by showing me more ways of doing things.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDisclosure, Ethics, and Voice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollege teachers demonstrated a high level of comfort with transparency and a strong focus on ethical oversight, which they maintained through deliberate strategies. Many teachers were comfortable disclosing their AI use because the practice was institutionally supported. JM indicated that his use \u0026ldquo;is encouraged by the dean and the university admins and president.\u0026rdquo; Theo expressed that he views ChatGPT as \u0026ldquo;a legitimate tool for improving teaching efficiency.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDisclosure\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003ewas formalized. Flor noted that instructors were \u0026ldquo;required to say if we used ChatGPT in the materials being presented.\u0026rdquo; Elie observed that students responded positively, recognizing instructors\u0026rsquo; use of contemporary technology. Teachers prioritized academic integrity by maintaining authorship and reviewing outputs carefully. Flor emphasized, \u0026ldquo;Academic integrity is a paramount consideration. AI tools or ChatGPT should only be an aid in teaching.\u0026rdquo; Thesa stated that ethical concerns were minimized \u0026ldquo;as long as the ChatGPT output is verified/validated and reviewed, and as well as citing proper references.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaintaining a personal teaching voice was achieved through revision and adaptation. Theo ensured that he \u0026ldquo;structure[d] tasks in the way my students are used to,\u0026rdquo; maintaining continuity. Len confirmed that the final product always reflected her expertise: \u0026ldquo;At the end of the day, AI only responds to the prompts I provide, and it is my voice that truly emerges in the way I frame and guide those prompts.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur findings illustrate that the integration of ChatGPT by college teachers was not a passive adoption but, rather, an active, strategic exercise. First, in terms of mitigating risk, we found that teachers immediately addressed the flaws cited in educational literature. Specifically, while studies caution that AI-generated curricula can be incomplete or risk inserting hallucinated information [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], college teachers primarily used ChatGPT for structural planning (e.g., outlines, syllabi) and treated its output as a scaffold. Consequently, this was evidenced by the verification against established academic sources (e.g., textbooks, journal articles), a crucial step validating the caution against potentially inaccurate responses [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe risk of a one-size-fits-all approach, which fails to address student diversity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], was directly countered by targeted customization. We found that teachers would condition ChatGPT by inputting subject-specific course materials; subsequently, they would tailor content by adjusting tone and difficulty levels and adding specific contextual examples (e.g., engineering applications). Therefore, this hands-on approach confirms that college teachers adopted personalized prompt generation and tailoring. This ensures the final resources were aligned with their specific pedagogical goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings underscore the critical role of teachers in ensuring the relevance and quality of assessments. Consistent with Vetrivel et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], AI can support educators in effectively evaluating higher-order thinking skills and the real-world application of knowledge. In our study, college instructors were able to generate diverse versions of exam questions and complex formats, including LaTeX-based math equations. However, accomplishing this required careful technical control, achieved through restricted prompts (e.g., instructing the AI to generate variations only, not answers) and iterative refinement of commands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, teachers used ChatGPT to enrich and expand assessment mechanisms. They created detailed rubrics and evaluation forms where they added new criteria not previously considered. This accentuates how ChatGPT\u0026rsquo;s utility extended beyond basic generation, supporting the finding that ChatGPT can make rubrics more descriptive [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeanwhile, we found that the efficiency gains were dramatic, with teachers reporting substantial time savings (e.g., reducing multi-hour tasks to minutes). This finding strongly affirms the efficiency and ideation capabilities noted by Japoshvili-Ghvinashvili \u0026amp; Suleman [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Crucially, this saved time was not used to reduce workload but to enhance pedagogical capacity, enabling teachers to focus on higher-value tasks like planning class discussions and problem-solving activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, ChatGPT acted as a catalyst for creativity. It helped teachers expand their options for framing content and adapting materials to newer generations of learners. Although the potential for overreliance exists [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e], teachers actively used the AI to reshape their creative process, thereby leveraging its strengths without sacrificing their professional agency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, we found that teachers maintained high ethical confidence through practices of transparency and supervision. Consequently, disclosure was frequent and comfortable, as the use of AI was institutionally encouraged and integrated, validating the local consensus that the technology should be monitored and supervised rather than banned [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe preservation of the personal teaching voice was a key mechanism: teachers corrected the AI's generic tone by performing stylistic customization, adding their own examples, and ensuring the structure aligned with student expectations. In short, ChatGPT provided the structure, yet the teacher\u0026rsquo;s creativity emerged in how they framed and guided the prompts. This makes the final material remained culturally and relationally authentic to the classroom and confirms that the teacher's professional identity remains the core driver of quality of educational materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIMPLICATIONS\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTheoretical Implications\u003c/b\u003e Our findings carry important implications for theory, practice, policy, and future research. Theoretically, we show that AI integration in education is most effective when guided by deliberate teacher oversight rather than passive adoption. This supports models of human-AI collaboration [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] while challenging assumptions that AI alone can produce high-quality instructional materials. By highlighting verification and customization, we contribute new perspectives to research on AI-assisted educational materials development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePractical Implications\u003c/b\u003e Our qualitative findings revealed how teachers strategically use AI to enhance educational materials in their field while maintaining control over content, quality, and pedagogy. Because of these insights, we crafted the TEACH framework (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). This offers a structured approach for integrating AI into educational materials development responsibly and effectively. Practically, it provides actionable guidance for educators to save time on routine tasks. We suggest that institutions adopt TEACH to support teacher agency, standardize AI-generated/assisted material development, and enhance instructional effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractical Steps for Doing TEACH Framework\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat the Teacher Does\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect Link to Findings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eT: Target the Purpose\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDefine the exact instructional function.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecide: Is the AI output for a quiz, lesson explanation, rubric, worksheet, discussion prompt, etc.?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaterial Generation \u0026amp; Scope\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eE: Expand Resources with AI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGenerate first drafts, examples, rephrasings, or variations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUse prompts to create or adapt slides, exams, feedback, or activity ideas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEfficiency \u0026amp; Creative Expansion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eA: Assess Accuracy\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFact-check and compare with textbooks, journal articles, or official standards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrect misconceptions, rewrite formulas, adjust complexity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRigorous Adaptation Mechanics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eC: Customize for Context\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEdit tone, teaching style, level of difficulty, student background relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePersonalize so it sounds like you, matches your pedagogy, and fits your student group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisclosure, Ethics, and Voice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eH: Highlight Ethical and Responsible Use\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBe transparent about AI assistance and promote responsible use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClarify to students when a tool supported the material; encourage ethical learning practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisclosure, Ethics, and Voice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePractical Teacher Guide\u003c/b\u003e This TEACH framework is inspired and can be supplemented by Giray\u0026rsquo;s (2025) Human-AI-Human framework [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], which emphasizes the collaborative cycle between the human, AI, and the human again to ensure high-quality, ethical, and contextually relevant learning materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePhase 1: HUMAN (Planning Before AI)\u003c/b\u003e Before engaging AI, teachers reflect on the instructional purpose. Ask yourself: Why do I need this material? Who are my learners in terms of year level, readiness, and interests? What format is required: a worksheet, slide deck, problem set, rubric, or teaching script? The output of this phase is a clear instructional intent that will guide the AI interaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePhase 2: AI (Drafting and Expansion)\u003c/b\u003e With instructional goals in place, AI can be used to draft content and expand resources. Effective prompts specify the topic, level, format, tone, and learning objective or standard. For example: \u0026ldquo;Create 8 beginner-level stoichiometry problems for first-year BS Chemistry students. Include step-by-step solutions. Use clear and student-friendly language.\u0026rdquo; If the AI output is too generic, iterate rather than accepting the first draft. AI serves as a creative and efficiency-enhancing partner, generating material that can then be refined by the teacher.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePhase 3: HUMAN (Verification and Personalization)\u003c/b\u003e In the final human phase, teachers ensure that AI-generated materials are accurate, relevant, and ethically sound by carefully reviewing and refining the content. This includes checking facts against textbooks, journal articles, or official standards, adjusting the difficulty to match student readiness, rewriting the material to reflect their personal teaching voice and style, and deciding when and how to disclose AI assistance to maintain transparency and promote responsible use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe outcome of this iterative process is a high-quality, teacher-aligned learning resource that combines the efficiency and creativity of AI with the pedagogical judgment and ethical responsibility of the teacher.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFuture Research\u003c/b\u003e Our study identifies opportunities for future research. We recognize that questions remain about the long-term effects of AI on pedagogical creativity and learning outcomes. We encourage further studies to explore discipline-specific applications, compare the effectiveness of different AI tools, and investigate strategies for scaling frameworks like TEACH (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) across diverse educational contexts. Additionally, we see value in examining how AI reshapes teacher workflows and professional identity over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we found that ChatGPT serves as a powerful, yet supplementary, tool in college teachers\u0026rsquo; workflows, enhancing both efficiency and creativity in educational material development. We observed that the tool expedited the creation of quizzes, worksheets, rubrics, lesson slides, and LaTeX-formatted content, reducing tasks that traditionally took hours to minutes. Importantly, we found that teachers never used AI outputs uncritically; they employed rigorous adaptation processes, including accuracy verification, contextual customization, and iterative prompt refinement, to ensure materials were pedagogically sound and relevant to student needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe also observed that ChatGPT expanded creative possibilities, helping teacher generate diverse ideas while retaining their professional voice and teaching style. Ethical transparency emerged as a critical practice, with teachers disclosing AI use and maintaining accountability for all materials. Overall, we conclude that the benefits of AI integration in educational material development are maximized when guided by deliberate teacher oversight. These results inform the TEACH framework, which is a practical guide to interact with ChatGPT so it can support high-quality, contextually relevant educational materials.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthics approval\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research was conducted with the knowledge and ethical approval of the corresponding author’s institution: Mapúa University dated June 21, 2025. All procedures involving human participants were performed in accordance with institutional guidelines and recognized ethical standards. Compliance with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 ensured lawful data handling. Participation was voluntary, and respondents were informed of their right to withdraw at any time. No identifying information was collected, and all data were stored in a password-protected database accessible only to the research team. These safeguards protected participants’ privacy, autonomy, and confidentiality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to publish\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe declare no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are no employment financial interest losses or gains to declare either current or previous for any of the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;We received no internal or external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDeclaration of Competing Interest\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData Availability\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are no employment financial interest losses or gains to declare either current or previous for any of the authors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The authors received no internal or external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDeclaration of Competing Interest\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were informed about the study’s procedures, risks, benefits, and other aspects before their participation. Only those who gave their consent were allowed to participate in the research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors’ contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLouie led the conceptualization, writing, analysis, manuscript development, critical revisions, and overall direction of the study. Ruth and Bonnin contributed significantly to the data gathering, literature review, analysis, and manuscript development. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDisclosure statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Including financial and non-financial interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDeclaration of generative AI use\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChatGPT 4.0 was used solely for proofreading and enhancing the language of this work. It did not contribute to the development of ideas, arguments, or analysis. The authors take full responsibility for the content and originality of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRospigliosi P. Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: What questions should we ask of ChatGPT? Interact Learn Environ. 2023;31(1):1\u0026ndash;3. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaidoo-Anu D, Ansah L. Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. J AI. 2023;7(1):52\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.61969/jai.1337500\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.61969/jai.1337500\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewton P, Xiromeriti M. ChatGPT performance on multiple choice question examinations in higher education: A pragmatic scoping review. Assess Eval High Educ. 2024;49(6):1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/02602938.2023.2299059\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/02602938.2023.2299059\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNikolic S, Daniel S, Haque R, Belkina M, Hassan G, Grundy S, et al. ChatGPT versus engineering education assessment: A multidisciplinary and multi-institutional benchmarking and analysis of this generative artificial intelligence tool to investigate assessment integrity. Eur J Eng Educ. 2023;48(4):1\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/03043797.2023.2213169\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03043797.2023.2213169\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalaweh M. ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemp Educ Technol. 2023;15(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.30935/cedtech/13036\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30935/cedtech/13036\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKasneci E, Sessler K, K\u0026uuml;chemann S, Bannert M, Dementieva D, Fischer F, et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learn Individ Differ. 2023;103:102274. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEager B, Brunton R. Prompting higher education towards AI-augmented teaching and learning practice. J Univ Teach Learn Pract. 2023;20(5). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.53761/1.20.5.02\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.53761/1.20.5.02\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKiryakova G, Angelova N. ChatGPT\u0026mdash;A challenging tool for the university professors in their teaching practice. Educ Sci. 2023;13(10):1056. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/educsci13101056\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/educsci13101056\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhai C, Wibowo S, Li LD. The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students\u0026rsquo; cognitive abilities: A systematic review. Smart Learn Environ. 2024;11(28):1\u0026ndash;37. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAzaria A, Azoulay R, Reches S. ChatGPT is a remarkable tool\u0026mdash;For experts. Data Intell. 2023;6(1):1\u0026ndash;49. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1162/dint_a_00235\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1162/dint_a_00235\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOgugua D, Yoon SN, Lee D. Academic integrity in a digital era: Should the use of ChatGPT be banned in schools? Glob Bus Finance Rev. 2023;28(7):1\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.17549/gbfr.2023.28.7.1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17549/gbfr.2023.28.7.1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEstrellado CJ, Miranda JC. Artificial intelligence in the Philippine educational context: Circumspection and future inquiries. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2023;13(5). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.29322/IJSRP.13.05.2023.p13745\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29322/IJSRP.13.05.2023.p13745\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEspartinez AS. Between innovation and tradition: A narrative inquiry of students\u0026rsquo; and teachers\u0026rsquo; experiences with ChatGPT in Philippine higher education. Soc Sci. 2025;14(6):359. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/socsci14060359\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/socsci14060359\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaraman MR, G\u0026ouml;ksu İ. Are lesson plans created by ChatGPT more effective? An experimental study. Int J Technol Educ. 2024;7(1):107\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.46328/ijte.607\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.46328/ijte.607\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKalenda PJ, Rath L, Heidt MA, Wright A. Pre-service teacher perceptions of ChatGPT for lesson plan generation. J Educ Technol Syst. 2024;53(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/00472395241301388\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/00472395241301388\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavis R, Lee YJ. Prompt: ChatGPT, create my course. please! Educ Sci. 2023;14(1):24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/educsci14010024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/educsci14010024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHo B, Lau KK, Tin G, Lee E, Kulkarni D, Seow CS, ChatGPT versus human in generating medical graduate exam multiple choice questions\u0026mdash;A multinational prospective study (Hong, Kong SAR et al. Singapore, Ireland, and the United Kingdom). PLOS ONE. 2023;18(8). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1371/journal.pone.0290691\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0290691\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYavuz Selim Kıyak. A ChatGPT prompt for writing case-based multiple-choice questions. Rev Esp Educ M\u0026eacute;dica. 2023;4(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.6018/edumed.587451\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.6018/edumed.587451\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKahlow J. The alchemy of assessment and evaluation: From lead to gold. Arlington (TX): Mavs Open; 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDhamija A, Dhamija D. View of understanding teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives on ChatGPT-generated assignments in higher education. J Interdiscip Stud Educ. 2025;14(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.32674/ptf9yd75\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.32674/ptf9yd75\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaposhvili-Ghvinashvili M, Suleman N. View of assisting ELT teachers: Designing activities for the use of ChatGPT in teaching and learning. Pak J Multidiscip Innov. 2025;2(1):24\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.59075/pjmi.v2i1.219\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.59075/pjmi.v2i1.219\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaranjakwut C, Charunsri K. Transforming AI chatbots for a brainstorming teaching technique of process writing. Malays Online J Educ Technol. 2025;13(1):1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.52380/mojet.2025.13.1.559\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.52380/mojet.2025.13.1.559\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltamimi AB. Effectiveness of ChatGPT in essay autograding. In:, Computing. Electronics \u0026amp; Communications Engineering. 2023. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1109/iccece59400.2023.10238541\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1109/iccece59400.2023.10238541\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuah B, Zheng L, Jie T, Yong CW, Islam I. Reliability of ChatGPT in automated essay scoring for dental undergraduate examinations. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s12909-024-05881-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12909-024-05881-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMagtoto G, Bagnol F, Abunda R. ChatGPT\u0026mdash;A threat or an aid in teaching and learning. Int J Open Distance E-Learn. 2024;9(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.58887/ijodel.v9i2.250\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.58887/ijodel.v9i2.250\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHatmanto ED, Pasandalan SNB, Rahmawati F, Sorohiti M. Empowering creative education: Applying ChatGPT for enhancing student engagement in senior teacher-driven instructional design in the Philippines. E3S Web Conf. 2024;570(03007). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1051/e3sconf/202457003007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1051/e3sconf/202457003007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmpo WMG, Ayuban AR, Avellaneda SLA, Go DT. Exploring teachers\u0026rsquo; lived experiences in integrating ChatGPT in classroom practices. Int J Educ Emerg Pract. 2025;1(1):17\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.63236/injeep.1.1.2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.63236/injeep.1.1.2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTorrato JB, Pillar GA, Robledo DAR, Aguja SE, Prudente MS. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices on ChatGPT: Perspectives from students and teachers of De La Salle Santiago Zobel School. In: Proceedings of the 2024 15th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning. 2024. pp. 107\u0026ndash;116. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1145/3670013.3670058\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1145/3670013.3670058\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77\u0026ndash;101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiray L. ChatGPT references unveiled: Distinguishing the reliable from the fake. Internet Ref Serv Q. 2023;28(1):9\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/10875301.2023.2265369\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10875301.2023.2265369\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVetrivel SC, Vidhyapriya P, Arun VP. The role of AI in transforming assessment practices in education. In: Keeley KL, editor. AI applications and strategies in teacher education. Hershey (PA): IGI Global; 2025. pp. 43\u0026ndash;70. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.4018/979-8-3693-5443-8.ch003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4018/979-8-3693-5443-8.ch003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiray L. Negative effects of generative AI on researchers: Publishing addiction, Dunning-Kruger effect and skill erosion. J Appl Learn Teach. 2024;7(2):398\u0026ndash;405. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.38\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.38\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGupta P, Nguyen TN, Gonzalez C, Woolley AW. Fostering collective intelligence in human\u0026ndash;AI collaboration: Laying the groundwork for COHUMAIN. Top Cogn Sci. 2025;17(2):189\u0026ndash;216. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/tops.12679\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/tops.12679\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiray L. When using AI in scientific research: Start with human, end with human. TechTrends. 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s11528-025-01132-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11528-025-01132-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"AI in Education, ChatGPT, Educational Materials, Generative AI, Higher Education, Instructional Design, Philippine Education, TEACH Framework","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8984458/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8984458/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates how tertiary faculty members at a private university in the Philippines utilize ChatGPT to develop educational materials, focusing on their lived experiences and strategic adaptation. Employing a qualitative descriptive research design, data were collected from experienced faculty members through open-ended narrative responses. Thematic analysis was applied to identify recurring patterns in material generation, adaptation mechanics, and ethical considerations. Results indicate that educators leverage ChatGPT to produce a wide array of resources, including quizzes, lesson slides, rubrics, and LaTeX-formatted math problems, effectively reducing preparation time from hours to minutes. However, integration is not passive; participants utilized rigorous adaptation mechanics involving systematic fact-checking against established academic sources to mitigate AI hallucinations and conditioning the model with course-specific content. The findings highlight that while ChatGPT enhances creative ideation and professional efficiency, maintaining a distinct personal \u0026ldquo;teaching voice\u0026rdquo; and ensuring ethical transparency are central to their practice. Participants viewed AI as a structural scaffold requiring expert human mediation rather than a standalone replacement. Based on these qualitative insights, the study introduces the TEACH framework (Target, Expand, Assess, Customize, Highlight) as a structured, actionable guide for responsible AI-assisted instructional development. This framework underscores a human-AI-human collaborative cycle, which ensures that AI integration remains pedagogically sound, contextually relevant, and ethically grounded within the landscape of Philippine higher education.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Qualitative Analysis of College Teachers’ Practices Using ChatGPT to Develop Educational Materials and the Introduction of the TEACH Framework for Effective AI Integration","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-25 05:50:51","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8984458/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-20T09:29:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-11T14:37:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"52677625097585363817263627388283473024","date":"2026-04-11T13:10:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-23T06:57:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"142907205909750329941843108553471751573","date":"2026-03-20T12:39:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-19T12:33:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-28T12:33:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-28T12:33:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2026-02-27T06:47:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"74225fa4-b8ca-4ee9-afd4-10d6f0e6e69b","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 25th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-20T09:40:43+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-25 05:50:51","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8984458","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8984458","identity":"rs-8984458","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}