ChatGPT in Teacher Education: Reducing Pre-Service Teachers’ Cognitive Load

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into education, its implications for teacher candidates’ cognitive processes warrant closer attention. This mixed-methods study examined the use of ChatGPT during lesson planning in the teaching practicum, focusing on perceived cognitive load, patterns of material use, and teacher candidates’ experiences. Twenty-four fourth-year teacher candidates participated in a six-week implementation in which they used ChatGPT to prepare lesson plans and instructional activities. Quantitative data were collected using a cognitive load rating scale, and qualitative data were obtained from weekly reflective narratives. Perceived cognitive load decreased significantly following the six-week implementation. Participants were also more likely to use ChatGPT-generated activities directly than activities obtained from Internet sources. Qualitative findings indicated that ChatGPT supported idea generation, access to instructional content, lesson-plan development, and time efficiency, while participants also reported limitations such as insufficient or repetitive content, misalignment with learning objectives, and system-related problems. Overall, ChatGPT may support lesson planning when its outputs are critically evaluated and adapted to pedagogical needs.

Keywords

• ChatGPT
• ArtificiaI intelligence
• cognitive load
• teacher education

Supporting Institution

none

Ethical Statement

The research strictly adhered to scientific and ethical standards throughout its execution, obtaining ethical clearance from the University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Board, as evidenced by decision number 2023-16 on April 20, 2023

Thanks

none

Öğretmen Eğitiminde ChatGPT: Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilişsel Yükünün Azaltılması

Abstract

Yapay zekânın (YZ) eğitime giderek daha fazla entegre olmasıyla birlikte, öğretmen adaylarının bilişsel süreçlerindeki rolünün anlaşılması giderek daha önemli hâle gelmektedir. Bu karma yöntem araştırması, öğretmenlik uygulaması sürecinde ders planlamada ChatGPT kullanımını; algılanan bilişsel yük, materyal kullanım biçimleri ve öğretmen adaylarının deneyimleri açısından incelemiştir. Çalışmaya, altı haftalık uygulama süresince ders planı ve öğretim etkinlikleri hazırlarken ChatGPT kullanan 24 son sınıf öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Nicel veriler bilişsel yük değerlendirme ölçeğiyle, nitel veriler ise haftalık yansıtıcı anlatımlar yoluyla toplanmıştır. Bulgular, ChatGPT kullanımının ardından algılanan bilişsel yükte anlamlı bir azalma olduğunu göstermiştir. Katılımcıların ayrıca ChatGPT tarafından üretilen etkinlikleri internet kaynaklarından elde edilen materyallere kıyasla daha doğrudan kullandıkları belirlenmiştir. Nitel bulgular, ChatGPT’nin fikir üretme, öğretim içeriğine erişim, ders planı geliştirme ve zamanın daha verimli kullanılması açısından destek sağladığını; ancak katılımcıların yetersiz veya tekrarlayıcı içerik, öğrenme hedefleriyle uyumsuzluk ve sistem kaynaklı sorunlar gibi sınırlılıklar da bildirdiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Genel olarak bulgular, ChatGPT’nin ürettiği içerikler eleştirel biçimde değerlendirildiğinde ve pedagojik gereksinimlere göre uyarlandığında ders planlama sürecini destekleyebileceğine işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• ChatGPT
• Yapay Zekâ
• Bilişsel Yük
• Öğretmen Eğitimi

Supporting Institution

hayır

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırma, bilimsel ve etik standartlara tam uyum içinde yürütülmüştür. Etik onay, Üniversite Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etik Kurulu’ndan alınmıştır (Karar No: 2023-16, tarih: 20 Nisan 2023).

Thanks

hayır

References

1. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500 Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and experience differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.2190/1N20-VV12-4RB5-33VA Biswas, S. (2023). ChatGPT and the future of medical writing. Radiology, 307(2), e223312. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.223312 Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_7 Çakmak, E. K. (2007). Çoklu ortamlarda dar boğaz: Aşırı bilişsel yüklenme. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(2), 1–24.
2. Celen, K. M., & Akcan, S. (2017). Evaluation of an ELT practicum programme from the perspectives of supervisors, student teachers and graduates. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 6(3), 251–274. https://izlik.org/JA35JA48LY
3. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
4. Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(3), 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y
5. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
6. Demir, F., & Çatak, M. (2023). Examination of pre-service teachers’ experiences in teaching practice with distance education. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 8(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1141770
7. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Pearson/Prentice Hall.
8. Gurl, T. J., Markinson, M. P., & Artzt, A. F. (2025). Using ChatGPT as a lesson planning assistant with preservice secondary mathematics teachers. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 11, 114–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-024-00162-9

9. Kaldırım, A., & Tavşanlı, Ö. F. (2021). A thematic review of using digital teaching technologies in Turkish language teaching. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 4(2), 70–95. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.898014
10. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
11. Kılıç, E., & Karadeniz, Ş. (2004). Hiper ortamlarda öğrencilerin bilişsel yüklenme ve kaybolma düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 10(40), 562–579.
12. Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
13. Kula, S. S., & Güler, M. P. D. (2021). University-school cooperation: Perspectives of pre-service teachers, practice teachers and faculty members. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v17i1.12620
14. Küth, S., & Scholl, D. (2024). The complexity of the lesson planning task: Consequences for student teacher education. Journal für Allgemeine Didaktik, 12, 175–195. https://doi.org/10.35468/jfad-12-2024-08
15. Li, T., Ji, Y., & Zhan, Z. (2024). Expert or machine? Comparing the effect of pairing student teacher with in-service teacher and ChatGPT on their critical thinking, learning performance, and cognitive load in an integrated-STEM course. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 44(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2305163
16. Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries? Library Hi Tech News, 40(3), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009
17. Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
18. Matos, T. D., dos Santos, W. N. L., Zdravevski, E., Coelho, P. J., Pires, I. M., & Madeira, F. (2025). A systematic review of artificial intelligence applications in education: Emerging trends and challenges. Decision Analytics Journal, 15, 100571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2025.100571
19. Ministry of National Education. (2017). General competencies for teaching profession. Directorate General for Teacher Training and Development.
20. Noroozi, O., Soleimani, S., Farrokhnia, M., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024). Generative AI in education: Pedagogical, theoretical, and methodological perspectives. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(3), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.845
21. Öğdem, Z., Sönmez, E., & Erdoğan, O. (2023). Problems and solution offers regarding the teaching practice course according to the opinions of faculty members and teachers. International Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture, 8(20), 97–134. https://doi.org/10.35826/ijoecc.675
22. Orland-Barak, L., & Wang, J. (2021). Teacher mentoring in service of pre-service teachers’ learning to teach: Conceptual bases, characteristics, and challenges for teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119894230
23. Paas, F., & Ayres, P. (2014). Cognitive load theory: A broader view on the role of memory in learning and education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 191–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9263-5
24. Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089303500412
25. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
26. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516.d0
27. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
28. Qadir, J. (2023). Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education. In 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1–9). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON54358.2023.10125121
29. Sahin-Taskin, Ç. (2017). Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceptions of lesson planning in primary education. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(12), 47–63.
30. Smith, K., & Lev-Ari, L. (2005). The place of the practicum in pre-service teacher education: The voice of the students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660500286333
31. Sperling, K., Stenberg, C.-J., McGrath, C., Åkerfeldt, A., Heintz, F., & Stenliden, L. (2024). In search of artificial intelligence (AI) literacy in teacher education: A scoping review. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100169
32. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
33. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
34. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
35. Tajik, E., & Tajik, F. (2023). A comprehensive examination of the potential application of ChatGPT in higher education institutions. TechRxiv. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22589497.v1
36. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
37. Woo, D. J., Wang, D., Guo, K., & Susanto, H. (2024). Teaching EFL students to write with ChatGPT: Students’ motivation to learn, cognitive load, and satisfaction with the learning process. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 24963–24990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12819-4
38. Xu, W., & Ouyang, F. (2022). The application of AI technologies in STEM education: A systematic review from 2011 to 2021. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), Article 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00377-5
39. Young, J. Q., Van Merriënboer, J., Durning, S., & Ten Cate, O. (2014). Cognitive load theory: Implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Medical Teacher, 36(5), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.889290
40. Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7