Keywords
Microsoft Copilot
pre-service teachers’ opinions
case study
How to Cite
Abstract
A lesson plan is an action plan that shows how to achieve the objectives of a lesson step by step in a certain period of time in the teaching of a subject. Lesson planning is one of the important elements of teacher education. However, research shows that pre-service teachers have problems in lesson planning. Artificial intelligence can produce solutions to the problems experienced by pre-service teachers. For this purpose, pre-service teachers need to be able to use this tool effectively, recognize its possibilities and limitations, and approach it with a critical perspective. The purpose of this research is to determine what support Microsoft Copilot offers to pre-service teachers in preparing lesson plans for reading education in Turkish lessons and how they evaluate this support. The method of the research is case study. The study group consists of 24 students. The data were collected through reflective diaries, lesson plans, and interviews. Descriptive and content analysis were applied to the data. As a result of the research, it was determined that teacher candidates sought support for every stage of the course. Both positive and negative opinions emerged in the same codes regarding the support offered by Copilot. Accessing the source sites, activity ideas, overall plan, and images are the codes where positive opinions are concentrated, while text creation, subject area knowledge, and question/rubric preparation are the codes where negative opinions are concentrated. Participants stated that attention should be paid to the accuracy and adequacy of the content and the accuracy of the questions and to give sufficient detail when requesting information. These results show that Copilot should be improved in terms of Turkish. However, the results also suggest that AI tools should be included in teacher education despite their limitations. Pre-service teachers evaluate the outcomes of the program with their prior knowledge. This approach is important for the development of pedagogical content knowledge and better lesson planning.
References
Farrell, T. S. C. (2010). “Lesson planning,” In Methodology in language teaching an anthology of current practice, J. C. Richards and W. A. Renandy Eds., New York, USA: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010, pp. 30-39. (in English).
L. Shulman, “Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.,” Harvard Educational Rev., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 1-23, 1987. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411. (in English).
M. Krepf and J. König, “Structuring the lesson: an empirical investigation of pre-service teacher decision-making during the planning of a demonstration lesson,” J. of Educ. for Teaching, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 911-926, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2151877. (in English)
Z. Kablan, “The effects of level of cognitive learning and concrete experience on teacher candidates’ lesson planning and application skills,” Educ. and Sci., vol 37, no. 163, pp. 239-253, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/1210 (in English).
S. Aşiroğlu and S. Koç Akran, “Examining of preservice teachers' performance preparing lesson plan,” e-Kafkas J. of Educational Res., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1-13, Dec. 2018. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.442694 (in Turkish).
P. R. Belibi Enama, “Student teachers’ competence in lesson planning during microteaching” J. of Teacher Educ. and Educators, vol. 10, no.3, pp. 341-368, Dec. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jtee/issue/67769/981261 (in English).
E. Çolak and D. Yabaş, “Investigating lesson plans of teacher candidates according to their self-efficacy levels towards implementation of constructivist approac,”. Inonu Univ. J. of the Faculty of Educ., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 86-103, 2017. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.323420. (in English).
M. Karagöz, D. Ak Başoğul, and N. Yücelşen, “The proficiency of pre-service teachers of Turkish in preparing lesson plan (Hasan Ali Yücel Fac. of Educ. sample),” Int. J. of Language Acad., 5(7), 67-80, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.18033/ijla.3777. (in Turkish).
F. Ulusoy and L. İncikabi, “Preservice mathematics teachers’ selection of curriculum resources in individual and group lesson planning processes,” Int.l J. of Math.Educ. in Sci. and Tech., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 557–578, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1958944. (in English).
B. R. Drost and A. C. Levine, “An analysis of strategies for teaching standards-based lesson plan alignment to preservice teachers,” J. of Educ., vol. 195, no. 2, pp. 37-47, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741519500206. (in English).
J. König, A. Bremerich-Vos, C. Buchholtz, I. Fladung, and N. Glutsch, “Pre-service teachers’ generic and subject-specific lesson-planning skills: On learning adaptive teaching during initial teacher education” Eur. J. of Teacher Educ., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 131-150, Oct. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1679115. (in English).
C. H. Heller, “Near-term applications of artificial intelligence,”. Naval War College Review, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 73-100, Aut. 2019. Accessed: May 9, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26775520 (in English).
M. Rebelo, What is Microsoft Copilot?, 2024, Accessed: May 06, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://zapier.com/blog/microsoft-copilot/ (in English).
İ. Çelik, M. Dindar, H. Muukkonen, and S. Järvelä, “The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A systematic review of researc,”. TechTrends, vol. 66, pp. 616–630, Mar. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y. (in English).
R. O. Davis and Y. J. Lee, “Prompt: ChatGPT, create my course, please!” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 24, pp.1-12, Dec. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010024. (in English).
X. Zhai, “ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education,” SRN Electron. J., Dec. 2022, Accessed: May 7, 2024 https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4312418. (in English).
I. Zaiarna, O. Zhyhadlo, and O. Dunaievska, “ChatGPT in foreign language teaching and assessment: exploring EFL instructors’ experience”, ITLT, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 176-191, Sep. 2024, https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v102i4.5716. (in English).
T. Trust, J. Whalen, and C. Mouza, “Editorial: ChatGPT: Challenges, opportunities, and implications for teacher education,” Contemporary Issues in Tech. and Teacher Educ., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1-23, 2023, Accessed: May 9, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/222408/. (in English).
O. Bulut and S. N. Yildirim-Erbasli, “Automatic story and item generation for reading comprehension assessments with transformers,” Int. J. of Assessment Tools in Educ., vol. 9(Special Issue), pp. 72-87, 2022. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1124382. (in English).
A. Nugroho, E. Andriyanti, P. Widodo., and I. Mutiaraningrum, “Students’ appraisals post-ChatGPT use: Students’ narrative after using ChatGPT for writing,” Innov.s in Educ. and Teaching Int., vol. 1, no. 13, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2319184. (in English).
D. Yan, “Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation,” Educ. and Inf. Techn., vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 13943-13967, Apr. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4. (in English).
M. R. King and ChatGPT, “A conversation on artificial intelligence, chatbots, and plagiarism in higher education,” Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, vol.16, pp. 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8. (in English).
Jiao, W.X.; Wang, W.X.; Huang, J.T.; Wang, X.; Tu, Z.P. Is ChatGPT a good translator? Yes with GPT-4 as the engine. Nov. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.08745 (in English).
C. K. Y. Chan, “A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning,” Int. J. of Educational Technol. in Higher Educ., vol. 20, no. 38, pp. 1-25, July 2023. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3. (in English).
G. van den Berg and E. du Plessis, “ChatGPT and generative AI: possibilities for its contribution to lesson planning, critical thinking and openness in teacher education,” Educ. Sci., vol., 13, no.10, Sep. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13100998. (in English).
A. Baytak, “The content analysis of the lesson plans created by ChatGPT and Google Gemini,” Res. in Social Sci. and Technol., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 329-350, Mar. 2024. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2024.19. (in English).
M. R. Karaman and İ. Göksu, “Are lesson plans created by ChatGPT more effective? An experimental study,” Int. J. of Technol. in Educ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 107-127, 2024. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.607. (in English).
M. Farrokhnia, S. K. Banihashem, O. Noroozi, and A. Wals, “A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research,” Innov.s in Educ. and Teaching Int., vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1-16, Mar. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846. (in English).
E. N. Zileli, “ChatGPT example in learning Turkish as a foreign language,” Int. J. of Karamanoglu Mehmetbey Educational Res., Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 42-51, June 2023. https://doi.org/10.47770/ukmead.1296013. (in Turkish).
M. Denscombe, The Good Res. Guide, 4th ed., Maidenhead, UK: McGraw Hill, 2010. (in English).
C. Marshall and G. B. Rossman, Designing Qualitative Res., Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage, 2014. (in English).
M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed., Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage, 1994. (in English).
G. van den Berg, “Generative AI and educators: partnering in using open digital content for transforming education,” OpenPraxis, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 130-141, Apr. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.2.640. (in English).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Serpil Özdemir