GenAI-Supported Approach to Lesson Planning for Inclusive Science Classrooms
Main Article Content
Abstract
The emergence of generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) presents transformative opportunities in education, yet its role in preparing future educators for inclusive instruction remains underexplored within international teacher education scholarship. This article addresses the critical need for pedagogical reform by investigating how AI-supported instructional design can enhance inclusive learning in science classrooms. Specifically, it explores the impact of an AI-integrated lesson planning framework, grounded in Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Constructivist, and Sociocultural perspectives, on the instructional design competencies of pre-service science teachers. This study employed a pre- and post-intervention mixed-methods design, engaging 25 pre-service science teachers from the University of Delhi, India, in a targeted training module. Before the intervention, a questionnaire assessed their knowledge, attitudes, and preparedness regarding inclusive science education and AI integration. The intervention module provided practical training on leveraging GenAI tools, such as ChatGPT and Gemini, to design inclusive science lessons, emphasising strategies for differentiation, accessibility, and diverse learning needs. Post-intervention, data were collected to evaluate the training’s impact on their lesson planning skills and confidence, analysed through descriptive statistics (including effect sizes) and qualitative thematic analysis to ensure methodological rigour. The study found that the GenAI-supported training improved pre-service science teachers’ perceived ability to design lesson plans tailored for inclusive classrooms. This training module also increased their confidence in utilising GenAI tools and enhanced their capacity to design inclusive science lessons. While the findings provide valuable insights into the practical application of GenAI, the results are framed within the context of self-reported data and the specific scale of the study. This exploration demonstrates GenAI’s potential to strategically empower future science educators to create more inclusive and responsive learning experiences, contributing to the evolving field of AI-assisted pedagogy.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bybee, R. W. (2010). The teaching of science: 21st-century perspectives. NSTA Press.
Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 6187–6203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
Duran, L. B., & Duran, E. (2004). The 5E instructional model: A learning cycle approach for inquiry-based science teaching. The Science Education Review, 3(2), 49–58.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., . . . Chaurasia, S. (2023). Opinion paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2013.778111
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.
Karpouzis, K., Pantazatos, D., Taouki, J., & Meli, K. (2024). Tailoring education with GenAI: A new horizon in lesson planning. In 2022 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578690
Kotte, E. (2021). Inclusive education and teachers’ perceptions of lesson planning and lesson work from a student inclusive perspective. SISYPHUS: Journal of Education 9(3), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.25749/sis.25380
Kraayenoord, C. E. (2007). School and classroom practices in inclusive education in Australia. Childhood Education, 83(6), 390–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2007.10522957
Krepf, M., & König, J. (2022). Structuring the lesson: An empirical investigation of pre-service teacher decision-making during the planning of a demonstration lesson. Journal of Education for Teaching International Research and Pedagogy, 49(5), 911–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2151877
Martinez, Y. M., & Porter, G. L. (2018). Planning for all students: Promoting inclusive instruction. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(14), 1552–1567. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1544301
Ministry of Education India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. India: Ministry of Education.
Moundridou, M., Matzakos, N., & Doukakis, S. (2024). Generative AI tools as educators’ assistants: Designing and implementing inquiry-based lesson plans. Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100277
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
Picasso, F., Atenas, J., Havemann, L., & Serbati, A. (2024). Advancing critical data and AI literacies through authentic and real-world assessment design using a data justice approach. Open Praxis, 16(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.3.667
Powell, W., & Courchesne, S. (2024). Opportunities and risks involved in using ChatGPT to create first grade science lesson plans. PLOS ONE, 19(6), e0305337. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305337
Rao, K., & Meo, G. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standards-based lessons. SAGE Open, 6(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016680688
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513518980
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Sahin-Taskin, C. (2017). Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceptions of lesson planning in primary education. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(12), 57–58.
Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity Press.
Sotiropoulos, D., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2025). Using GenAI tools to enhance teaching and learning in science. https://conference.pixel-online.net/files/npse/ed0014/FP/1306-PRS7231-FP-NPSE14.pdf
Strat, T. T. S., Henriksen, E. K., & Jegstad, K. M. (2023). Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60(2), 191–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2023.2207148
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated instruction. In J. A. Plucker, & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 197–210). Prufrock Press.
UNESCO. (2008). Inclusive education: The way of the future. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
UNESCO. (2015). Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wen, W., & Wen, H. (2024). Bridging generative AI technology and teacher education: Understanding preservice teachers’ processes of unit design with ChatGPT. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 24(4), 582–611.