Exploring Generative AI in Teacher Preparation Call for proposals

 Title/Theme: Exploring Generative AI in Teacher Preparation

The Challenge 

Generative AI is rapidly becoming commonplace and coupled with the availability of personal devices and one-to-one technology adoption, we need to ensure that the current and future generations of teachers understand its implications, know how to adjust their pedagogy and how to use it to assist in lesson planning, assessment, and individualizing instruction. In this call, we are specifically inviting submissions from practitioners using evidence-based strategies in both pre-service and in-service teacher education. 

Submissions might focus on (but are not limited to): 

• Personalized Learning 
• Intelligent Tutoring Systems 
• Automated Grading 
• Data Analysis and Insights 
• AI-driven Simulation and Virtual Reality in Teacher Education 
• Feedback on teacher performance 
• Lesson and assessment planning 
• Inclusion and accessibility 
• Chatbots in Learning and self-regulation 
• Bots for socio-emotional learning 
• Adaptive learning 
• AI literacy for teacher educators 
• What do teachers need to know in a world of Generative AI 
• Teacher preparation in an age of Generative AI
• Whose data? Who is learning? The complex realities of learning in an age of Generative AI 
• Ethical and Equity Implications of Generative AI in Teacher Education 
• The Economics of Generative AI and Teacher Education 
• Cultural Sensitivity and the Deployment of AI in Diverse Educational Settings 
• Assessing the Impact of Generative AI on Accessibility and Inclusion in Teacher Education 
• Generative AI, Social Justice, and Educator Preparation. 

The Approach: 

In addition to an open call for proposals, we also intend to invite scholars to submit articles from those who have participated in events held by the AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (I & T Committee). Since the spring of 2023, the I & T Committee has held a series of webinars and online Lunch and Learn sessions focused on generative AI in teacher education. Researchers and practitioners familiar with AI tools shared policies, procedures, and practices with the AACTE community, leading to rich forward-thinking conversations about this timely topic. We will continue to hold these events leading up to a featured session at the AACTE 2025 Annual Meeting in Long Beach, CA, where some of these scholars and I & T Committee members will be presenters. 

• Editors:
  Valerie Hill-Jackson, Ph.D., Texas A&M University
  Cheryl Craig, Ph.D., Texas A&M University
• Guest Co-Editors:
  Guy Trainin, Ph.D., University of Nebraska- Lincoln
  Laurie Bobley, Ed.D., Touro University
  Punya Mishra, Ph.D., Arizona State University
  Jon Margerum-Leys, Ph.D., Oakland University
  Peña L. Bedesem, Ph.D., Kent State University

Manuscript Guidelines 

Authors are encouraged to submit manuscripts that meet the following criteria: 

• All manuscripts must be fully blinded to ensure a reliable review process. 
• All manuscripts must meet publishing guidelines established by the American Psychological Association (APA) Publication Manual (7th edition, 2019). 
• A manuscript, inclusive of references, tables, and figures, should not exceed 10,000 words. 
• No more than one manuscript submission per author. 
• Read more JTE guidelines. 
• To submit your manuscript, please visit the JTE website. 

Timeline for Submission 

• June 15, 2024: A 150-word bio for each author, a 300-word structured abstract, and 5 keywords due to guest editors. Email these items to jmleys@oakland.edu and the subject line should read: ‘JTE Anniversary 76(3) – Abstract’. 
  
• September 1, 2024: Manuscript submission deadline for ‘Level 1’ external review; see the above guidelines. Manuscripts need to be in ‘near publication’ quality to move forward to the Level 2 review. 
  
• November 15, 2024: Level 1 – External peer review completed. 
  
• December 10 through January 10, 2025: ‘Level 2’ review by guest editors; feedback is provided to prospective authors on a rolling basis. 
  
• Noon (CST) Saturday, February 1, 2025. All final manuscripts must be received in the Sage online system for consideration of publication in JTE’s 75th anniversary issue on Generative AI, 76(3). The publication date is targeted for May 2025. 

What am I using AI for now as a Teacher Educator and Professional

 Since Generative AI came out, I have been using it extensively. As an exercise, I am logging all the direct Generative AI I use, knowing that there is much AI in the background of which I am less aware.

Generic letters: Looking at my log, I have used generative AI to create four official letters that required carefully worded messages that were sensitive yet firm. In each case, I used Chat GPT to create an initial wording, then edited the text to bring back my writing style and some of my personality when appropriate, and finally, I ran it through Grammarly to make sure that I had no embarrassing grammar and spelling errors. The use of generative AI for composing official letters creates great efficiencies for me and reduces the response times. Interestingly, one person asked me for a letter of support that they generated with the help of GenAI as well as a starting point.

In teaching: I have used ChatGPT to create a description of the social networks between students in a classroom for an activity on creating groups in an elementary classroom. Once again, I needed to refine the prompt a few times and finally edit the document, but the result was quite good, and I created an assignment that I will keep using in the future.

I tried to see what Gen AI would produce for an in-class presentation about reading instruction. The result was VERY generic, and I ended up discarding the suggested slides, retaining the I Dall-E to create unique artwork for the slides I designed for teaching writing. While Generative AI use was limited in creating content, I continue enjoying the use of the Designer feature in PowerPoint as a way to quickly spiff up my slide decks. Since we came back from Spring break, I created a set of questions for a welcome-back exercise that went very well.

Finally, I engaged my students in using GenAI to create groupings in their classroom (mock data) to see what the benefits and challenges are. The discussion that ensued included comments ranging from amazingly fast and accurate to a student questioning whether it is worth the time after a lot of editing.

Review of academic paper: Once I read the paper I was reviewing and had the main points that I wanted to stress to the authors so they could improve their research paper, I used Cen AI to expand and explain my bulleted points. The amount of editing this exercise created for me was a very limited return on investment, and I doubt I will use it in this way again.

Podcasting: I used GenAI to create episode summaries of the Not That Kind of Doctor podcast using the transcripts as the raw material. One episode summary was well done while ina. second GenAI completely missed the point. Both needed editing but were still a major time-saving application.

Across multiple uses, I usually prompt GenAI there times before I get everything that I want (or give up). More detailed prompts yield much more accurate results and less follow-up. Grammarly let me know that it made over 6000 suggested edits. Gen AI has changed how I work; it has made some things much easier and saves me time every day. However, I am still concerned with accuracy and specificity that can be achieved only through my deep seated professional knowledge.

An Open Letter from a Teacher Educator to EduTech Companies

I am a teacher educator. I work with pre-service teachers every day. I am also an EdTech expert leading professional development and research in this area. I love apps OERI and bells and whistle. I want my students to use tech tools for every opportunity it fits their lesson. I want them to give feedback electronically and use the best tools for the job. But I can't. The simple truth is that my students are having less open access to the technology. As a result, my students have very limited access to the tools used in their school district.

Here is the deal,  curriculum companies turn into Tech companies joined by startups in the field. They all try to sell district-wide products. The problem is that they are selling to school districts, but my students who are in practicum, internship and student teaching in the same classrooms do not belong to the district. As a result school districts do not want to pay for licenses that will not benefit teachers or additional students.

The problem is that more and more the cost is locking my students out of the materials they need to teach. There are hundreds of thousands of pre-service teachers in the US. EduTech companies, please figure it out. Use some of the capacity for innovation to create a profile for pre-service teachers.

Help us make the next generation of teachers connected capable and ready to go.

How we can get "fully trained" teachers?

Graduating class of the Lady Stanley Institute for Trained Nurses in Ottawa, Ontario

I hopped on to #satchat this morning. The chat was lively and focused on assessment practices. One of the participants made this comment:
A5: Technologies in the classroom are only as effective as the teacher using it. Realistically, most are not fully trained
indicating that most teachers are not fully trained to use technology in assessment. That comment stuck out to me. What does it mean to be fully trained?

The term fully implies a finality, that there is such a time when we are done learning and can then go out and perform. As a teacher educator, I fight this notion all the time. Most hiring officials want fully trained teachers. We work hard to prepare capable teachers, but most evidence shows that they have much to learn and the good ones will keep on learning for many more years. Professionals are always working on improving their craft learning of innovations and reflecting on their practice. 

The other fallacy is the idea that there is a set of practices and tools that sum up the profession. If you master this set you will be fully trained. The problem with this notion, of course, is that we do not have a set. Instead, we have an ever evolving set of practices (hopefully supported with evidence) and technology tools. There is no way to be fully trained because the what we train for keeps changing. In fact, the changes in technology do not just change the tool but the affordance in a way that can change the nature of the task and as a result the nature of what and how we teach.

So what can we do? 

1. We can provide teachers with ways of thinking and problems solving. Having productive strategies to think through Problems of Practice is a key element in our work. This is what we do in our student's Capstone Projects.

2. We can provide an environment that supports professional learning for all. Teachers have different problems of practice and thus different professional learning needs. To be ready to tackle the ever-changing challenges of teaching we must help teachers define their learning needs and seek out the right supports. These can be as far ranging as informal edchats on twitter or formal as graduate degrees in education.

3. Change our expectations. We should not expect fully trained. We should expect innovative teachers who keep trying new ideas. Sometimes we will fall on our faces, but with the help of a supportive group of educators we can get up dust ourselves off and learn.

We should keep trying because there is an important lesson for our students in seeing us try, fail and try again until we all succeed together, students and educators. This is especially true of our attitudes toward new technologies.

Four Reasons to Create a Low Stakes Classroom

© Copyright wfmillar

Toward the end of class on Tuesday, one of my students asked: "we have only one grade on the grade book, is that right?". I stopped for a second, my co-teacher and I have provided individual feedback on assignments to every student and had many other meaningful opportunities to interact and respond informally. At the same time, I had to respond "yes, only one grade." She continued: "I know that you do not care about grades, but we do!"

She is right of course. After so many years of conditioning and signaling through grades, it is unfair of me to expect they will be able to accept this approach. Even more so when they have high stakes in the form of a GPA (for grad school, job search), scholarships and more.

That same evening Justin Olmanson brought up the same feature in a Q & A we both participated in. I have also seen it in many of the classrooms using Minecraft as part of instruction. It seems like we have a much easier time letting go of stakes in informal making tasks (art, shop, Minecraft) than in traditional school ones. So, I wanted to take the opportunity and clarify why I try to create a low-stakes classroom:

1. Honest dialogue. When I ask my students to teach and report about their experiences, I want them to be honest, open, and reflective. Honest dialogue is hard to do in a high-stakes environment. If a successful lesson is a high-stakes yardstick, I am pretty sure that each student would try and spin their lesson in the best possible light (maybe even bend the truth). All their efforts would be to protect themselves instead of reflect on what they learned. In a sense, they would be learning about self-preservation instead of personal growth.

2. Creating cycles of self-improvement. Feedback in a low-stakes environment allows my student to revise and improve their learning products no matter how good they are. High stakes grading shift foci from growth to outside criteria.  A great example is high achieving students who often get very high grades. Once the grades are in they see no reason to go on and improve their performance.

3. Improving performance. There is quite a bit of experimental work showing that high-stakes reduce performance in high cognitive load tasks. At the early stages of their career, my students need to focus on process and procedure as a way to get better.

4. Creativity. Creativity and expertise are closely related. I believe that when expertise level is relatively low, as is the case with students, creativity can happen when the stakes are low as well. In a low-stakes environment failed experiments are acceptable as steps towards expertise and the thrill of creating something new.

Lowering stakes does not mean lowering standards. It means that we allow learners to participate and find their way to reaching and surpassing the standards.

Starting a new year

My students showed up to class. 

Smiling, 

energetic, 

purposeful. 

Most with bags full of stuff. Less than third had devices (other than phones) out. Ready to learn, even this generation is not digital first, most are composing on paper first. I wonder if this is a permanent difference or whether with devices early in schooling? Is it going to disappear, like cursive or shorthand? I am digital first but is there a way to enable both technologies in our classrooms? Is it wise?

A few days later they are here with devices creating, sharing and using a fantastic array of apps. They are still taking notes on paper. The variety of media is empowering. A new semester is off to a good start.

Making a difference

This week I visited the Avenue Scholars Foundation in Omaha. Jef Johnston their chief operating officer said something that resonated with me. Referring to recruiting diverse teachers he said (I am paraphrasing here): this problem is solvable, if it has not been solved yet it is because they don't really want to.

I found this approach to be very much inline with my feelings about many of the problems I encounter in teacher education.

At the heart of it it is a design problem- not the external shiny stuff but design in the full sense of the word- the way someone like Steve Jobs would use it:

In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer. It's interior decorating. It's the fabric of the curtains of the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service.

Steve Jobs

Arts Integration in a Preservice Class- log

In my literacy methods class we went through an accelerated Arts LINC cycle today. We started with a Taylor Mali poem- reminding everyone that poems are often meant to be read out loud. We then proceeded to poetryfoundation.org where each student chose a Thanksgiving poem (their search engine is awesome and now they have a ipod app).
Students joined with1-3 others who chose the same poem and practiced reading it out loud (mini readers theatre). Then we followed up by creating visual art based on the poem- using pastels. The results were stunning and diverse. After the art was completed each student generated 5 vocabulary words (no one cent or nickel words please) to describe the art (and not the poem). Finally they used the words to create a poem describing their art.
Results wer engagement, achievement and deep understanding. We finished with a few minutes of research results from Arts LINC long live arts integration.

It's the first time I've had this much fun with this group.

A Note about Teacher Education Programs

This stems from curriculum action on my campus recently.
The fact that a student took some arts classes in her past, and then went through an elementary education program with no emphasis on the arts education, does make her qualified to teach art in elementary schools. If we are to take ourselves seriously we must make sure that those who are certified get the best instruction and experience that we can give then. Just being an artist does NOT prepare you to teach the arts. We've known this for years about artists in residence. The same holds true for generalist teachers...
That's it just had to get it off my chest as we realign our programs.