Phase-Specific Integration of Generative AI into the 5E Instructional Model: A Design-Based Research Study in Pre-Service English Language Teacher Education
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is reshaping instructional design in teacher education, yet existing research predominantly treats AI as a generic productivity tool rather than examining its pedagogical function at specific phases of established instructional models. This study addresses that gap by developing, implementing, and refining a phase-specific GenAI integration framework within the 5E instructional model (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate) for pre-service English language teachers. Grounded in constructivist learning theory and self-determination theory (SDT), the framework specifies five distinct AI functions: cognitive activator (Engage), scaffold builder (Explore), critical evaluation object (Explain), creative collaborator (Elaborate), and differentiated assessment support (Evaluate). A two-cycle Design-Based Research (DBR) design was employed with 32 pre-service English language teachers across a 12-week pedagogy course. Data sources included 64 lesson plans (one lesson plan per participant per cycle; 32 in Cycle 1 and 32 in Cycle 2), 380 GenAI interaction logs, 384 reflective journal entries, and 12 semi-structured interviews. Analysis combined deductive content analysis (Cohen’s κ = 0.84) with reflexive thematic analysis. Findings show that phase-specific AI integration was associated with more frequent and more critical modification of AI-generated content, and with qualitative indicators of pedagogical reasoning, particularly in designing inquiry-oriented language activities. Because the study did not include an independent pre/post measure of pedagogical reasoning, these findings should not be interpreted as establishing a causal enhancement of reasoning. Four design principles were proposed: pedagogical goal alignment, productive friction, progressive release (tentative and not directly tested), and transparency/attribution. Three persistent tensions are analyzed: cognitive offloading, prompt construction as a barrier, and the “paradox of assistance” in SDT’s autonomy dimension. The study contributes a theoretically grounded, empirically refined framework and offers actionable design principles for teacher educators integrating GenAI into language pedagogy courses.
References
[1]
Yanar, A.N. and Ergene, Ö. (2025) Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Education: How Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers Use ChatGPT for 5E Lesson Plan Design. <i>Journal of Pedagogical Research</i>, 9, 158-176. <br>https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.202533163
[2]
Choi, Y. (2025) Integrating ChatGPT into the Design of 5E-Based Earth Science Lessons. <i>Education Sciences</i>, 15, Article 815. <br>https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070815
[3]
Bybee, R.W., Taylor, J.A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., West-Brook, A. and Landes, N. (2006) The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. BSCS.
[4]
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V.I., Bond, M. and Gouverneur, F. (2019) Systematic Review of Research on Artificial Intelligence Applications in Higher Education—Where Are the Educators? <i>International Journal of Educational Technology in </i><i>Higher Education</i>, 16, Article No. 39. <br>https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
[5]
Holmes, W., Bialik, M. and Fadel, C. (2019) Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Center for Curriculum Re-Design.
[6]
Allaire, F.S., Pecore, J.L. and Sivaraj, R. (2026) From Skepticism to Innovation in 5E-Asy Steps: Harnessing ChatGPT for 5E Science Lesson Planning. <i>Journal of College Science Teaching</i>, 55, 378-386. <br>https://doi.org/10.1080/0047231x.2026.2650312
[7]
Henze, J., Lademann, J., Bresges, A. and Becker-Genschow, S. (2025) Iterative Development of an AI Intervention for Pre-Service Physics Teachers from a Vygotskian Perspective. <i>Frontiers in Education</i>, 10, Article 1707534. <br>https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1707534
[8]
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. <i>American Psychologist</i>, 55, 68-78. <br>https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68
[9]
Lodge, J.M. (2025) Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Offloading and Implications for Education. In: Holmes, W., Ed., <i>The Routledge Companion to Artificial Intelligence in Education</i>, Routledge, 45-62.
[10]
Gerlich, M. (2025) The Impact of AI on Cognitive Engagement. <i>Computers & Education</i>, 200, 104-115.
[11]
Fernando, M., Sanjakdar, F. and Chowdhury, R. (2025) Perspectives and Possibilities: Australian Teacher Educators’ Understanding and Enactment of Critical Pedagogy. <i>Teaching Education</i>, 36, 368-388. <br>https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2025.2532467
[12]
Curtis, G.J. (2025) The Two-Lane Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions: Why an All-or-None Approach to Generative AI, Integrity, and Assessment Is Insupportable. <i>Higher Education Research & Development</i>, 44, 2151-2158. <br>https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2476516
[13]
Reeves, T.C. (2006) Design Research from a Technology Perspective. In: Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S. and Nieveen, N., Eds., <i>Educational Design Research</i>, Routledge, 52-66.
[14]
Lee, J. and Jeon, J. (2024) Design-Based Learning in Teacher Education: A Systematic Review. <i>Educational Technology Research and Development</i>, 72, 2845-2872.
[15]
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. <i>Qualitative Research in Psychology</i>, 3, 77-101. <br>https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa