Yogev Shani, Idit Adler E95 teachers in reflecting on their practices and that they addressed the different types of knowledge associated with effective strategy instruction (Schraw, 1998). Regarding TeachPal’s effectiveness in supporting PSTs’ reflection, articulation, and exploration, TeachPal did not consistently address PSTs’ instructional practices, but rather provided more generic explanations, contradicting the CAM rationale of providing specific, individualized feedback (Collins et al., 1991; Dennen & Burner, 2008); TeachPal often continued somewhat repetitive discussions, a known GenAI pitfall (Buschek et al., 2021), which may have reduced PSTs’ engagement. On the one hand, our results highlight the potential of the GenAI-based CAM approach to enhance PSTs’ engagement and reflection but concurrently suggest that the effectiveness of integrating GenAI was limited due to the discourse characteristics. We therefore suggest that more attention should be given to the structuring of effective PST-GenAI discourse so that it is less repetitive tailored to PSTs’ need to fully exploit its potential (Trust et al., 2023). References Buschek, D., Mecke, L., Lehmann, F., Dang, H., 2021. Nine potential pitfalls when designing humanAI Co-creative systems. In: Workshops at the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2104.00358. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). New York: Cambridge University Press. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., and Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnik (Ed), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American educator, 15(3), 6-11. Dennen, V. P., & Burner, K. J. (2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 425-439). Routledge. Giannakos, M., Azevedo, R., Brusilovsky, P., Cukurova, M., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernandez-Leo, D., ... & Rienties, B. (2024). The promise and challenges of generative AI in education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1-27. Molenaar, I. (2022). Towards hybrid human‐AI learning technologies. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 632-645. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Robertson, D. A., Ford-Connors, E., Frahm, T., Bock, K., & Paratore, J. R. (2020). Unpacking productive coaching interactions: identifying coaching approaches that support instructional uptake. Professional Development in Education, 46(3), 405-423. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1/2), 113-125. Trust, T., Whalen, J., & Mouza, C. (2023). Editorial: ChatGPT: Challenges, opportunities, and implications for teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1), 1-23.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk0MjAwOQ==