“Let’s Ask the Robot!”: Epistemic Stance Between Teacher Candidates Toward AI in Mathematics Lesson Planning

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI)-powered conversation agents such as ChatGPT are increasingly being used in teacher education. Although ChatGPT can provide ample resources for lesson planning, little attention has been paid to how teacher candidates construct prompts and evaluate AI-generated outputs in real time to develop lesson plans. Taking up Bisconti et al.’s conceptualization of generative AI as a social agent in a sociotechnical system, this article investigates how knowledge construction is dynamic and negotiated through interaction when using ChatGPT to develop lesson plans. We applied conversation analysis through Heritage’s gradient model of epistemic stance––which captures moment-to-moment expressions of social relationships––to analyze how teacher candidates position their knowledge in relation to that acquired from ChatGPT, as managed through their prompts and questions. Our findings aim to offer insights to help teacher educators develop scaffolds for teacher candidates to critically curate content from AI-powered agents and identify areas needing further instructional support.

Keywords

artificial intelligence ChatGPT human–artificial intelligence collaboration lesson planning mathematics teacher education sociotechnical systems epistemic stance social agents

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alvarado

(2023). AI as an epistemic technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(5), 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00451-3

Ball

D. L.

Thames

M. H.

Phelps

(2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(389). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554

Bisconti

McIntyre

Russo

(2024). Synthetic socio-technical systems: Poiêsis as meaning making. Philosophy & Technology, 37(3), 94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00778-0

Chen

(2024). A feasibility study for the application of AI-generated conversations in pragmatic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 223, 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.01.003

Corp

Revelle

(2023). ChatGPT is here to stay: Using ChatGPT with student teachers for lesson planning. The Texas Forum of Teacher Education, 14, 117–124.

Davis

R. O.

Lee

Y. J.

(2023). Prompt: ChatGPT, create my course, please!. Education Sciences, 14(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010024

Farrokhnia

Banihashem

S. K.

Noroozi

Wals

(2024). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846

Ferrario

Facchini

Termine

(2024). Experts or authorities? The strange case of the presumed epistemic superiority of artificial intelligence systems. Minds and Machines, 34(3), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09681-1

Flavin

. (2024). Black feminist thought as a guide for ethical integration of artificial intelligence in mathematics classroom. Connections, 34(1), 1–8, https://amte.net/sites/amte.net/files/FlavinFlavin_Connections_Fall2024.pdf

10.

Hatmanto

E. D.

Sari

M. I.

(2023). Aligning theory and practice: Leveraging ChatGPT for effective English language teaching and learning. E3S Web of Conferences, 440, 05001. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344005001

11.

Hepburn

Bolden

(2018). Transcribing for social research. Sage.

12.

Heritage

(1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson

Heritage

(Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.

13.

Heritage

(2012a). Epistemic in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684

14.

Heritage

(2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685

15.

Jefferson

(1984). Transcription notation. In Atkinson

Heritage

(Eds.), Structures of social interaction (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge University Press.

16.

John

P. D.

(2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500363620

17.

Kang

(2017). Preservice teachers’ learning to plan intellectually challenging tasks. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 55–68.

18.

Koschmann

Stahl

Zemel

(2007). The video analysts manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying practice within design-based research. In Goldman

Barro

Derry

Pea

(Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 133–143). Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Krowka

S. K.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2017). Cognitive profiles associated with responsiveness to fraction intervention. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(4), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12146

20.

Lambert

(2021). The magic is in the margins: UDL math. Mathematics Teacher Learning & Teaching, 114(9), 660–669. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTLT.2020.0282

21.

Lee

Yeo

(2022). Developing an AI-based chatbot for practicing responsive teaching in mathematics. Computers & Education, 191, 104646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104646

22.

Lee

J. E.

Lim

Kim

H. J.

(2016). Lesson planning: How do pre-service teachers benefit from examining lesson plans with mathematics teaching practices as an analytical lens? Journal of Korean Society of Mathematics Education Series C: Education of Primary School Mathematics, 19(3), 211–222. https://dx.doi.org/10.7468/jksmec.2016.19.3.211

23.

Lewis

(2014). Difference not deficit: Reconceptualizing mathematical learning disabilities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(3), 351–396. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.3.0351

24.

Lilly

Bieda

K. N.

Youngs

P. A.

(2024). How early career elementary teachers vary in planning mathematics instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 27(1), 85–110.

25.

Llompart

(2021). Students as teachers, teacher as learner: Collaborative plurilingual teaching and learning in interaction. In Dolors

Luci

(Eds.), Plurilingual Classroom Practices and Participation (pp. 54–65). Routledge.

26.

Lloyd

G. M.

Cai

Tarr

J. E.

(2017). Issues in curriculum studies: Evidence-based insights and future directions. In Cai

(Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 824–852). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

27.

Luff

Gilbert

N. G.

Frohlich

(Eds.) (1990). Computers and conversation. Academic Press.

28.

Morales

(2021). Epistemic status as an analytic tool: Mapping classroom talk and participation in a middle grades prototyping testing activity. Linguistics and Education, 64, 100939.

29.

Mutton

Hagger

Burn

(2011). Learning to plan, planning to learn: The developing expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 17(4), 399–416.

30.

Rapp

Bassok

DeWolf

Holyoak

K. J.

(2015). Modeling discrete and continuous entities with fractions and decimals. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 21(1), 47–56. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000036

31.

Raymond

Heritage

(2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404506060325

32.

Ropohl

(1999). Philosophy of socio-technical systems. Society for Philosophy and Technology Quarterly Electronic Journal, 4(3), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne19994311

33.

Sabzalieva

Valentini

(2023). ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in higher education: Quick start guide. UNESCO.

34.

Sawyer

A. G.

Dredger

Myers

Barnes

Wilson

Sullivan

Sawyer

(2020). Developing teachers as critical curators: Investigating elementary preservice teachers’ inspirations for lesson planning. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(5), 518–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119879894

35.

Schegloff

E. A.

(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

36.

Stake

(2005). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–454). Sage.

37.

Stokoe

Albert

Buschmeier

Stommel

(2024). Conversation analysis and conversational technologies: Finding the common ground between academia and industry. Discourse and Communication, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813241267118

38.

van den Berg

du Plessis

. (2023). ChatGPT and generative AI: Possibilities for its contribution to lesson planning, critical thinking and openness in teacher education. Education Sciences, 13(10), 998. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13100998

39.

Voogt

Fisser

Pareja Roblin

Tondeur

van Braak

(2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x

40.

Yin

R. K.

(2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford Publications.