Chinese K-12 EFL teachers’ use of AI for writing lesson planning: Cognition and Perceptions in Practice

Chinese K-12 EFL teachers’ use of AI for writing lesson planning: Cognition and Perceptions in Practice | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Chinese K-12 EFL teachers’ use of AI for writing lesson planning: Cognition and Perceptions in Practice Enyi Zhu, Yi Yang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932636/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Understanding teachers’ lesson preparation processes serves as an essential approach to grasping pedagogical practices, especially in such a digital age. Under these circumstances, it appears very necessary to explore how exactly EFL teachers prepare and perceive their potential L2 writing lessons using the GenAI tool. To address this major concern, this study employed the think-aloud approach and retrospective interview to explore the 10 Chinese K-12 EFL teachers’ cognitive processes of lesson planning for L2 writing with the assistance of GhatGPT-4. Research findings indicate that Chinese English teachers prioritize the planning of learning content most frequently during their lesson preparation process, followed by reflection on student-related considerations. The planning of learning activities ranks third in terms of cognitive frequency. Regarding the perceptions, teachers demonstrated more negative than positive perceptions towards AI, with only 37.8% of evaluations acknowledging its advantages. The most prominent perceived strength of Gen AI lies in its rich theoretical knowledge base as recognized by teachers. However, 62.2% of negative evaluations criticize its limitations, particularly teachers’ perception that Gen AI generates content that is generic, rigid, and lacking in creativity. GenAI writing lesson planning ELF teachers cognitive process perceptions of AI Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Since the release of ChatGPT in 2022, GenAI has brought a fundamental revaluation to educational landscapes (Bower et al., 2024 ). Powered by Large Language Models (LLMs), GenAI tools are altering current instructional approaches, learning modalities, and assessment frameworks across various disciplinary learning and instruction (Okulu & Muslu, 2024 ; Hu et al., 2024 ; Şimşek, 2025 ; Taani & Alabidi, 2024 ). Given this transformative paradigm shift, scholarly attention has increasingly focused on examining GenAI applications in second language(L2) pedagogy across diverse learner populations and language domains, especially writing learning and instructions in tertiary-level education (Zaiarna et al., 2024 ; Tseng & Lin, 2024 ). Although previous literature has documented the effectiveness as well as limitations of GenAI tools in L2 writing learning and teaching, relevant research specifically addressing how EFL teachers employ and perceive GenAI tools while designing K-12 L2 writing lessons remains insufficient so far (Lo et al., 2024 ; C Meniado, 2023 ). In addition to the academic significance, addressing this issue is also pedagogically important for EFL educators. In primary and secondary education, writing acquisition has been widely regarded as a compulsory element of L2 pedagogy ( Nguyen, 2019 ; Geng et al., 2022 ). Taking China as an example, the English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (2022 Edition) specifies writing proficiency as an essential competency for EFL students in primary and secondary education (MEI, 2022 ). However, Chinese secondary school EFL teachers were generally reluctant to devote substantial time to writing instruction and rarely incorporated technological tools to support writing pedagogy (Liu, 2020 ). The advent of the AI era makes it particularly imperative to investigate L2 writing teachers’ instructional preparation in this new context. To advance EFL writing pedagogy, this study aimed to explore how exactly front-line Chinese secondary EFL teachers utilized GenAI in their lesson planning by examining their thinking process and perception of its usage. As previous scholars have pointed out, researching teachers’ cognitive processes provides insights into instructional practices by revealing how environmental shifts influence pedagogy(Clark, 1988 ; Hall & Smith, 2006 ). The advent of the AI era makes it particularly imperative to investigate L2 writing teachers’ instructional preparation in this new environment. Simultaneously, studying technology users’ perceptions remains fundamental for product development (Agarwal et al., 1996 ; Chen, 2009). To address these major concerns, this study aims to investigate the following research questions: Research question 1: What are the cognitive processes of Chinese EFL teachers’ lesson planning for writing while using GenAI (e.g., ChatGPT-4)? Research question 2: What are teachers’ perceptions of the role of ChatGPT-4 during lesson planning? 2. Literature review 2.1 Cognitive process of lesson planning for EFL learning The study of teachers’ lesson planning has a long tradition. The standardization of curriculum planning began with Tyler ( 1950 ), who proposed rational steps for teachers to plan instruction, including selecting learning objectives, organizing learning instruction, and evaluating learning experiences. Zahorik ( 1975 ) further argued that teachers’ decision-making during curriculum planning most frequently involved designing student activities, and that instructional practices were not always derived from predetermined objectives. With the education research proceeding, scholarly attention has been gradually paid to teachers’ thinking process through the lens of cognitive psychology, with cognitive models in lesson planning established (Clark & Yinger, 1977 ; Yinger, 1980 ). Previous curriculum theorists (Clark, 1984 ; Wing-mui, 1997) noted that the ultimate goal of studying teachers’ thought processes is to construct a cognitive psychology framework for educators and offer educators profound perspectives to enhance educational quality. Recent years have witnessed increasing cognitive research into EFL teachers’ psychological process during instructional design. For instance, Contreras et al. ( 2020 ) compared cognitive differences between pre-service and in-service secondary school teachers in lesson planning. Their findings highlight that pre-service English teachers in Chile tend to develop more detailed lesson plans during instructional design. Yan and Goh ( 2023 ) explored the cognitive processes of pre-service Chinese language teachers during collaborative lesson planning. The study found that teacher candidates engaged in both macro- and micro-level cognitive processes, and enhanced their lesson plans by challenging and building on others’ ideas. Based on the two existing studies related to EFL teachers’ cognitive processes in lesson planning, scholars have primarily focused on general L2 learning, leaving research specifically targeting L2 writing instruction a gap in the field. Yet, existing research on L2 writing predominantly concentrates on tertiary education contexts, leaving the study of L2 writing lesson planning in K-12 settings critically underexplored (Lee, 2022 ). 2.2 GenAI and lesson planning for EFL learning The emergence of LLMs in recent years represents a groundbreaking breakthrough in natural language processing (NLP) and generative tasks within the field of artificial intelligence. As a deep learning model, LLMs can respond to questions by understanding contextual information (Parasuraman, 2024 ). Currently, the most representative LLMs are the GPT series developed by OpenAI, which simulates human-like interactions based on user input and has been widely applied across various disciplines (Lo, 2023 ). The integration of ChatGPT into education has undoubtedly captured significant attention among practitioners, as it demonstrates remarkable capabilities in assisting teaching and learning, enhancing academic writing, curriculum planning, academic assessment, and fostering professional development for educators (ElSayary, 2024 ; Salih et al., 2024 ). In the domain of curriculum design, previous studies documented the substantial benefits of ChatGPT for lesson preparation, pedagogical strategies, and teaching methodologies in various subjects, such as science (Okulu & Muslu, 2024 ; Peikos & Stavrou, 2025 ), mathematics (Hu et al., 2024 ; Şimşek, 2025 ) and language learning (Guo et al., 2025 ; Mohamed, 2024 ). In the field of language education, a study conducted by scholars at a Turkish university examined 43 pre-service EFL teachers’ evaluation of ChatGPT-generated lesson plans. Based on the same instructions, ChatGPT produced 43 different lesson plans for an English writing class. In the end, the 43 participants highlighted the advantages of AI-assisted lesson plans in enhancing engagement, adaptability, and overall structure, while also identifying challenges in differentiation and assessment (Uysal & Yüksel,2024). Dornburg and Davin ( 2024 ) investigated the characteristics, variability, and weaknesses of foreign language lesson plans generated by ChatGPT through zero-prompt generation, finding that the AI-produced lesson plans reflected outdated script recitation patterns and failed to align with practical teaching requirements. It is evident that in the field of language education, previous research primarily focuses on analyzing the content quality of GenAI-generated lesson plans. Recently, scholars attached increasing attention to teachers’ lesson planning process with GenAI assistance from a human-computer interaction perspective. For instance, Guo et al. ( 2025 ) investigated how Chinese EFL teachers integrated chatbots into their instructional planning for argumentative writing. Their findings revealed that teachers designed diverse learning activities by combining chatbots with various instructional strategies, such as chatbot-assisted writing practice and chatbot-supported debate activities. Teachers’ professional knowledge helped identify chatbot’s limitations, which they addressed by adding more chatbot interactions. However, this study was conducted under higher education contexts. We remain unclear about the process of lesson planning for L2 writing among K-12 in-service teachers. 2.3 Teachers’ perception of GenAI in language learning and teaching According to existing research, users’ willingness to adopt GenAI is closely associated with their perceptions (Bubaš, 2023). It is known that understanding educators’ perceptions of GenAI-assisted instruction within emerging technological environments is essential for fully realizing its pedagogical potential (Shi et al., 2024 ; Aguilar-Cruz & Salas-Pilco, 2025 ). In language education contexts, there is a growing body of research on users’ (including learners and teachers) perceptions of GenAI(see Mohamed, 2024 ). For instance, Kohnke ( 2023 ) examined Hong Kong higher education L2 learners’ perceptions of chatbots, revealing their positive attitudes toward GenAI based on personal interaction experiences. Hew et al. ( 2023 ), in their study examining EFL students’ use of chatbots for online listening learning, demonstrated the pedagogical advantages of chatbots in supporting online language acquisition. Learners reported positive learning experiences with the chatbot technology, particularly highlighting its perceived usefulness and ease. From teachers’ perspective, Mohamed ( 2024 ) synthesized existing research on AI integration in English language teaching, concluding that some university EFL teachers recognize ChatGPT’s value in quickly answering diverse questions, yet others express concerns about its potential to hinder students’ critical thinking development, research skills cultivation, and risks of disseminating biases and misinformation. Zaiarna et al. ( 2024 ) explored EFL teachers’ experiences and perceptions of using ChatGPT in teaching and assessment at the university level. The results revealed that teachers exhibited varying levels of confidence depending on their familiarity with ChatGPT, though overall satisfaction remained relatively high. More recently, Arslan ( 2025 ) conducted a study through questionnaires on artificial intelligence literacy and interviews on usage perceptions involving 230 Turkish EFL university teachers. The findings revealed that these Turkish EFL teachers generally lacked relevant knowledge and competencies, demonstrating a moderate level of self-perceived ability in using AI. The teachers expressed a desire to improve their skills in applying AI technology to pedagogical practices. Taken together, most existing research concentrates on tertiary-level language education in general, with less empirical attention devoted to K-12 EFL teachers’ perceptions of GenAI use during specific practices such as lesson planning. Only by integrating GenAI into a broader educational framework and considering the perceptions of diverse participant samples across different foreign language teaching contexts, particularly in primary and secondary language education and specific instructional settings, can we gain a comprehensive understanding of GenAI’s impact on language education. (Mohamed, 2024 ; Lo et al., 2024 ). 3. Method Qualitative research methods were adopted in this study. For the first research question, the think-aloud protocol method was employed to capture teachers’ real-time cognitive activities. For the second research question, retrospective interviews served as the main methodological approach to investigate teachers’ perception of AI usage. 3.1 Participants The study involved a total of 10 Chinese EFL teachers(9 females and 1 male), with an average age of 30 years. All participants were in-service English teachers engaged in China’s K-12 compulsory education, including two teachers from primary schools and eight from secondary schools (see Table 1 ). Table 1 Detailed information about participating teachers Teacher code Age (21–30\ 31–40\ 41–50\ over 50 years old) Education background Teaching experience (1–5\ 5–10\ over 10 years) Think aloud duration (minutes) Interview duration (minutes) Length of the lesson plan (words) T1 31–40 undergraduate Over 10 43 25 498 T2 31–40 postgraduate 1–5 49 37 778 T3 21–30 postgraduate 1–5 25 20 986 T4 21–30 postgraduate 1–5 51 30 2598 T5 21–30 undergraduate 1–5 109 31 1910 T6 21–30 undergraduate 1–5 46 24 1644 T7 31–40 undergraduate Over 10 12 19 929 T8 31–40 undergraduate Over 10 37 11 775 T9 21–30 postgraduate 1–5 29 40 797 T10 21–30 postgraduate 1–5 80 77 2480 3.2 Instruments 3.2.1 Lesson planning task This study assigned a lesson preparation task to participants, requiring them to design a 45-minute English writing lesson plan with ChatGPT-4. The given task required the following: You are now an English teacher of a certain class, use ChatGPT-4 to assist you in designing a 45-minute English writing lesson plan. Participants were required to type their lesson plans using e-documents and submit the electronic lesson plan files to researchers upon completion. As these teachers currently teach different grade levels, no specific writing themes or materials were prescribed, nor were time constraints imposed on the preparation duration. The lesson plan format did not require specific templates or language specifications. These minimal restrictions were aimed at authentically replicating teachers' natural GenAI assisted lesson planning scenarios. 3.2.2 Think aloud method The think-aloud technique is currently recognized as originating from cognitive psychology. The theory of think-aloud protocols by Ericsson and Simon provides crucial theoretical support for the use of this method in cognitive psychology research, as well as for investigating problem-solving processes (Cotton & Gresty, 2006 ). According to Ericsson ( 2017 ), the think-aloud protocol refers to the verbalization of an individual’s thought processes and sequential actions while performing a cognitive task, with these verbal reports recorded either concurrently during the task or retrospectively after its completion. This study focuses on teachers’ cognitive processes during GenAI-assisted lesson preparation tasks. As this process does not involve physical actions beyond computer operations, the think-aloud protocol serves as an appropriate methodological approach. 3.2.3 Retrospective interview Researchers also critiqued that think-aloud are not able to completely capture participants’ thinking process during a certain problem-solving task (see Zhang & Zhang, 2019 ). In light of this point, retrospective interviews were employed as a supplementary method to compensate for potential gaps in teachers’ incomplete verbal reporting during their solo cognitive processes. The interviews were divided into two main sections. The first section focuses on teachers’ cognitive processes during lesson preparation, specifically examining instances where they pause to provide verbal reports. The second section centers on teachers’ experiences and perceptions while using GenAI. Example reference questions include: How did you perceive these questions? And what was the intended purpose of these three questions? How did you feel about the framework generated by the AI at that moment? 3.2.4 ChatGPT-4 ChatGPT-4, developed by OpenAI in 2023, represents a significant advancement over its predecessor ChatGPT-3.5. As a multimodal large language model, it generates text, images, and computer code in response to diverse prompts, demonstrating human-level performance across professional and academic benchmarks (Sanderson, 2023 ; Achiam et al., 2023 ). ChatGPT-4’s exceptional language comprehension and generative capabilities have been proven effective in assisting teachers by generating high-quality lesson plans and materials based on inputs such as course content, learning objectives, and pedagogical theories (Hashem et al., 2024 ). A representative screenshot of teacher-ChatGPT-4 interactions is provided in Fig. 1 . 3.3 Data collection The 10 EFL teachers received pre-task training covering both the think-aloud methodology and GenAI (ChatGPT-4) operations, given their limited prior experience with these tools, to ensure protocol fidelity during implementation. Before starting the task, teachers entered the online meeting room and simultaneously activated their computers’ shared desktop function. At this point, researchers in the meeting room could observe the teachers’ computer operation interfaces and hear their voices. Afterwards, the formal data collection was conducted, during which participating teachers were required to design a 45-minute writing lesson with the assistance of ChatGPT-4. Subsequently, the teachers performed the operational tasks while verbally reporting their thoughts aloud. No language restrictions were imposed during the think-aloud verbal reports, with all teachers opting to conduct their oral reporting in Chinese. The entire process was recorded by researchers using the meeting room’s screen-recording functionality. Throughout this period, researchers did not interrupt the teachers to avoid excessive interference with participants’ cognitive processes, thereby ensuring the accuracy of the think-aloud data. The average duration of think-aloud lesson planning was 48 minutes ( SD = 28.0 ), yielding 10 complete lesson plans of totaling 13,390 words. In the final phase, retrospective interviews were employed to provide supplementary information on participants’ cognitive processes and perceptions towards AI. Researchers replayed the screen-recorded video from the online meeting and invited teachers to collaboratively review their think-aloud recordings. Questions during the interview were tailored to teachers’ specific operations observed in the video. The whole data collection was audio-recorded for subsequent analysis. These interviews had an average duration of 31 minutes. 3.4 Data analysis To address the first research question, the researchers employed content analysis approach. These think-aloud protocols were generated from automatically transcribed videos recorded during online meetings on a web platform. The researchers meticulously reviewed the transcriptions against the video recordings multiple times to ensure accuracy of wordings. The researchers adopted the coding method proposed by Contreras et al. ( 2020 ), which is suitable for cognitive processes involved in curriculum planning. This coding framework includes 5 main categories and 20 sub-categories, with full specifications provided in Section 4.1 (Table 2 ). NVivo 15 was adopted for data analysis. Following Stemler’s ( 2000 ) concise guidelines for ensuring coding reliability, the procedure included having two researchers independently review the materials and list discrepancies in a checklist. After discussing and merging their opinions, they independently performed the coding. Therefore, in the initial phase of this study, two doctoral candidate authors from Shanghai Normal University independently coded two randomly selected participant reports. Once inter-coder reliability exceeded 95%, large-scale coding proceeded, ultimately ensuring the reliability and stability of the data processing. For the second research question, thematic analysis was employed. Thematic analysis is a research methodology grounded in the systematic identification, analysis, and reporting of patterns (themes) within qualitative data. As outlined by Braun and Clarke ( 2006 ), this approach involves a six-phase iterative process including familiarizing with your data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes and producing the report. The same two coders first independently reviewed the data collected from participants. After familiarizing themselves with the dataset, they applied their professional expertise as well as prior literature to engage in reflective and inductive analysis, systematically generating preliminary themes and sub-themes. These themes and sub-themes underwent multiple rounds of collaborative refinement until achieving over 92% inter-coder agreement, after which the final report was generated. 4. Results This section involved two parts. The first part addressed the first research question, focusing on teachers’ cognitive processes in designing lesson plans with AI assistance. The second part addressed teachers’ perceptions on the experience of utilizing GenAI tools for planning. 4.1 Cognitive process of AI-assisted lesson planning Through statistical analysis of cognitive frequencies, we observe that among all sub-themes, Planning of learning conten t accumulated the highest frequency, being mentioned 106 times by teachers. Following this, the sub-theme Reflecting about students ranked second with 89, while Planning of learning activity occupied third place with 87 mentions. The research data can be systematically organized and reported across four thematic modules aligned with the following categories: General aspect of lesson planning , Planning of teaching component , Organization of other teaching components and Reflection on teaching and learning . Table 2 Themes and sub-themes of cognitive processes of AI-assisted lesson planning Themes Sub-themes Exemplary quotes Frequency Total by category General aspects of lesson planning Planning of general information I just write writing lessons. I write writing lesson plans for primary school English. We have been talking about how to protect the Earth recently. (T 3) 26 86 Using English when lesson planning I’m going to design a writing class. First, I need to find an English topic. I want to see that we have been learning unit five recently and there happens to be a writing article. So I’ll find a topic first, a smart home devices. (T 1) 1 Using Chinglish when lesson planning It must be in English or Chinese. (T 9) 6 Using Chinese when lesson planning Instructions must be given to him. Chinese slogans. (T 2) 3 Reversing and editing of lesson planning Brother works in a gymnasium. It seems that I can’t modify his form. Let me take a look at sams as fathers brother. Then I’ll revise my model essay. (T 5) 50 Planning of teaching components Planning of resources and materials It so happens that this unit in our new textbook is exactly the previous one, and then last week, the seventh grade was included in our new textbook. (T 1) 29 367 Planning of aims This is an English writing teaching plan, consisting of three goals teaching objectives: knowledge objectives, skill objectives, and emotional objectives. (T 4) 42 Planning of learning content The main content is that as the principal, this invitation letter was written by the principal to the parents. Let them participate the completion activity of the new library in their school. (T 6) 106 Planning of learning activity Students read the opening paragraph of the story together, discuss the story in groups, students represent their groups to read their stories, groups share student stories. (T 2) 87 Planning of methodology A better design is to write a paragraph related to the topic of a similar model essay, show the students that model essay. (T 7) 42 Planning of assessment Students exchange book reviews for reading and provide constructive feedback. They can first give a demonstration in the class and then make an extension after the class. (T 7) 61 Organization of other teaching components Sequencing of planning Sentence structure, and then the following is a writing process, the student begins to write, look at the top is number three. (T 5) 40 110 Organizing of classroom space None 0 Organizing of classroom time Then the activity process is 45 minutes, this text seems to be 40 minutes, then I think it will take at least 20 minutes to comb this article. (T 10) 31 Organizing own ideas Let me get this essay down first. Then let me see what needs to be refined. (T 3) 39 Reflection on teaching and learning Reflecting about lesson planning Some people’s lesson plans only write a few rather rough points. I think if you write them in more detail, it’s actually equivalent to having more room for thinking. You will think only when you write in detail. (T 5) 57 281 Reflecting about learning activities I think this group discussion is still very good, first of all. At the end, there is actually a section equivalent to proof reading, which allows students to read to each other by themselves.(T 6) 47 Reflecting about resources and materials I would think that since our teaching materials have such a design, we can quote this idea very well. I haven’t seen such a course either. (T 4) 35 Reflecting about students And without a direction to guide it, discussing feelings can not discuss results. If there are too many discussions, students may become silent. (T 2) 89 Self-reflecting of own teaching skills It is based on the original teaching experience, that is in the process of our teaching design and a teaching template of our current standard, so I reflected it best in my mind at that time. (T 1) 53 4.1.1 General aspect of lesson planning The first section General aspect of lesson planning refers to the consideration of information such as the format, language, and revision process when lesson planning. The frequency of this theme was recorded 86 times in all, takes the proportion of whole frequency with 10.19%. Among these, the first sub-theme, Planning of general information , refers to teachers’ self-introduction in the initial stage of the lesson planning, as well as some conditions involved in lesson preparations. This process was coded 26 times. From the quoted examples in Table 2 , we can observe that T3 attempted to determine basic instructional information by recalling their recent teaching practices at the very beginning of the task. Data shows that multiple teachers engaged in recalling their recent teaching practices throughout the initial phase of the task and attempted to transfer these reflections into their planning of the task. Additionally, some teachers chose to have ChatGPT assist with planning right from the initial stage. As T9 put it: First, I asked him to write a framework for me. I made some modifications on his framework and designed a 45-minute lesson plan with the title My dream smart home. (T 9) Moreover, T9 began editing the instructions for ChatGPT-4 immediately after reporting. Many other teachers also went through this cognitive process at the start of the task, organizing their thoughts while issuing commands to ChatGPT-4 during the planning of general information. Regarding the languages employed in lesson planning among the ten participants, the data showed that only one teacher exclusively used English, six adopted Chinese blending with English, while three utilized Chinese exclusively. The process of Reversing and editing of lesson planning means teachers using various resources (such as books, the Internet, outlines, etc.) to revise or improve their lesson plans during the lesson planning process. Coding analysis of think-aloud protocols documented 50 coded references of lesson plan refinements across the participant cohort. From Table 2 , we can see that T 5 made revisions to the teaching content of the lesson plan, while most of the other modifications were related to teachers’ corrections of formatting and text editing. Below is an example of this process: What’s going on with this font? I need to change the font. (T 10) 4.1.2 Planning of teaching components Planning of teaching components was the most frequently mentioned section by teachers. It refers to the planning of the main elements of the lesson, such as the aims, activities, methodology, assessment, language content, and the resources and materials used in the lesson. As the most emphasized section by teachers, it was mentioned a total of 367 times. The process of Planning of learning content refers to teachers’ planning of students’ learning content, which primarily includes grammar and vocabulary, as well as knowledge related to the current writing lesson that can expand students' writing content. This cognitive process was the most frequently mentioned by teachers in this section, coded 106 times in total, making it the highest among all cognitive frequencies. The first cognitive process of this section, Planning of resources and materials , was coded 29 times. As illustrated by the quoted examples in Table 2 , nearly every teacher mentioned the planning of PPTs, and many also referenced textbooks and worksheets. However, none mentioned handwritten blackboards, which is a noteworthy phenomenon to highlight. Planning of aims , as a cognitive process, was mentioned by all 10 teachers, with a total of 42 mentions. However, the order in which teachers addressed it varied significantly. Observations revealed that some teachers began planning objectives only after completing all other sections of their lesson plans, while others addressed objective planning during the initial stages of the task. As shown in Table 2 , multiple Chinese teachers decomposed objectives into three categories: knowledge objectives, skill objectives, and emotional objectives. The cognitive process of Planning of learning activity is the second most frequent cognitive process in this section. It was coded 87 times in total. These 10 teachers planned a variety of instructional activities, with group discussions being the most commonly used, as exemplified in Table 2 . Planning of methodology typically involves teachers’ monitoring, providing feedback, and demonstrating teaching practices, among other actions. This process was mentioned 42 times in total. As the final cognitive process in this section, Planning of assessment , was mentioned 61 times in total. This process typically involves teachers using various strategies to assess students’ mastery of instructional objectives. Notably, nearly every teacher mentioned homework as an assessment method, while small group peer evaluation was a frequently cited approach for classroom assessment. 4.1.3 Organization of other teaching components The theme Organization of other teaching components involves the organization of other elements apart from the learning activities themselves, such as time management, space organization, organizing teachers’ own ideas and sequencing the lesson plan. This section comprises four cognitive processes, with their aggregate frequency totaling 110 times, accouting for 13.03% of total coded cognitive processes. The first cognitive process Sequencing of planning refers to the process of organizing the components of a lesson in a logical, coherent, and pedagogically effective sequence. Some teachers might make statements similar to the following quoted remarks: Sentence structure, and then the following is a writing process, the student begins to write, look at the top is number three. (T 5) The process of Organizing classroom space refers to the arrangement and management of the physical environment within a classroom. This cognitive process was not mentioned by any teacher. However, the process of Organizing of classroom time was mentioned by 8 participant teachers for a total of 31 times. Additionally, two teachers made no mention of course time arrangement during their lesson planning. This observation was explored in retrospective interviews, where one teacher admitted oversight, while the other dismissed its necessity, emphasizing reliance on an internal sense of timing. The cognitive process of Organizing own ideas denotes teachers internally adjusting their ideas and verbally organizing their thoughts during the lesson planning process. 10 teachers organized their own ideas 39 times in all. 4.1.4 Reflection on teaching and learning The last theme Reflection on teaching and learning represents the process of considerating regarding their own lesson planning, own teaching skills and whether their students would react positively to the lesson being planned. This reflective process was documented 281 times, accounting for 33.31% of all cognitive process instances. In this section, the most frequently engaged cognitive process among teachers was Reflecting about students . All 10 teachers extensively reflected on student-related factors, imagining their current students during this process. Considerations included students’ language proficiency, interest in the composition topic, and classroom engagement, as exemplified by the quoted examples in Table 2 .The cognitive process Reflecting about lesson planning primarily involves teachers’ reflections on the rationality of teaching segments and organizational structure. Here, each teacher reflected on this an average of 5.7 times, with typical quoted examples shown in Table 2 . The cognitive process Reflecting about learning activities was mentioned 47 times, focusing on teachers’ reflections on the purpose, significance, and effectiveness of activities. Among the 10 teachers, a common consideration was whether students could actively engage in the instructional activities they designed, as illustrated by representative examples in Table 2 . Reflecting about resources and materials was the least frequent cognitive activity in this section, coded 35 times by 9 teachers, with one teacher never engaging this cognitive process at all. The final cognitive process, Self-reflecting of own teaching skills , refers to teachers’ self-examination of their strengths and weaknesses, involving participants’ awareness of their teaching competencies. This cognitive process was mentioned by all 10 teachers, with a total of 53 mentions. In addition to the examples in Table 2 , a typical quote is provided below: Since I specialize in this field during my postgraduate studies, I tend to pay more attention to the evaluation aspect. Moreover, in some of our training sessions and public courses, teachers also apply such methods. (T 4) 4.2 Perceptions towards AI-assisted lesson planning Regarding the second research question, teachers’ perceptions were mainly divided into positive and negative aspects with six dimensions summarized. Through the analysis of these two categories of perspectives, six thematic dimensions can be summarized: Content Quality , Logical Reasoning , Working Efficiency , Pedagogical Aspect , Creativity and Technical Aspect . The categorization of codes related to teachers’ perspectives on using AI for lesson planning was similarly conducted through frequency tabulation, and the statistical outcomes are presented in Table 3 . According to overall statistics, teachers mentioned negative perceptions of AI 28 times, significantly more than positive perceptions (17 times). Below(see Table 3 ), we examine how teachers specifically described their perceptions of AI. Table 3 Frequency counts of perceptions towards AI-assisted lesson planning Dimensions Benefits Limitations Content Quality Rich in content Content solidification Detailed content General content Too specific Content missing Logical Reasoning Widen thinking Lack of logic and thinking Continuous thinking Working Efficiency High output speed Low efficiency Pedagogical Aspect Practical teaching Lack of consideration for learning Rich theoretical knowledge Creativity New and innovative content Lack of innovation Technical Aspect Problems with the text format First, as to the perception of Content quality , the positive feedback was primarily reflected in teachers’ perceptions that AI-generated content was rich and detailed. Positive feedback related to content quality was mentioned 5 times by teachers. The most frequently cited advantage was Rich in content , mentioned 4 times. In contrast, limitations of AI which related to Content quality outnumbered its benefits, with a total of 11 mentions. Some teachers perceived the content as rigid, others found it too generic or lacking depth, while some criticized it for being excessively detailed. The most frequently mentioned content quality issue was General content , mentioned 6 times by 4 teachers. Below is a quoted example from one teacher: Check the students’ homework and reflect here. It’s not detailed enough here. I’ll revise it bit by bit now. (T 5) With respect to AI’s Logical reasoning , positive perceptions significantly outweighed negative ones, with 4 mentions by teacher participants compared to only 1 negative remark. Teachers highly praised the continuity of AI-generated content, describing the lesson plans as "progressive layer by layer" and highlighting their structured design logic. Another teacher stated that AI broadened her thinking when she ran out of ideas. However, one teacher criticized AI’s lack of logical reasoning: Maybe in the instructional design, the activities written by people will be more logical or considered. (T 4) Regarding Work Efficiency , participating teachers mentioned it five times, with benefits and limitations being almost balanced in quantity. Some praised AI’s fast output speed, while others criticized its perceived inefficiency. The Pedagogical aspect received more positive feedback than negative feedback, primarily reflected in two strengths: rich theoretical knowledge and practical relevance to actual teaching. Here is the perspective of a teacher regarding the adaptability of AI in teaching: I think it is more in line with the whole class process, including the design, and I found that most of them can be used. (T 8) This teacher mentioned the advantage of AI’s "theoretical richness" 4 times, a point not raised by any other teachers. However, some teachers hold contrasting views. Below is a teacher’s perspective criticizing AI’s lack of consideration for student learning contexts: Sometimes the things it gave were either too verbose or too simple, so he could not consider learning, and then I told it about learning, as if it also wanted you to keep reminding it. (T 5) Regarding the aspect of Creativity in AI, teachers’ negative evaluations significantly outweighed positive feedback, with positive comments being mentioned only once compared to eight critical assessments. This was the most frequently mentioned aspect among all negative perceptions raised by teachers. Below is a representative critical comment: I think it is still relatively regular, it’s the comparison of the paradigm of English class, basically this is traditional, certainly not innovative. (T 7) Concerning the Technical Aspect dimension , no positive perspectives were captured from teachers. One teacher mentioned negative feedback related to technical issues twice during the usage process. Her description is quoted as follows: I really don't like the asterisks in its quotes. Or maybe it’s the structure of this partition that makes me feel bad. (T 4) Notably, the browser she used differed from those of other teachers: it was the default browser on Apple’s laptops, while other teachers used various browsers on Windows OS. The AI-generated formatting issues she reported may be browser-related. 5. Discussions This study found that, in the process of designing writing lesson plans with the assistance of GenAI, Chinese EFL teachers engaged most frequently in the cognitive activity of Planning of teaching components , followed by Reflection on teaching and learning . However, the General aspects of lesson planning was the least involved part. Teachers’ perceptions presented a mixed state, with overall negative evaluations of ChatGPT outweighing positive ones. In the following two subsections, we will discuss teachers’ cognition and perceptions during the GenAI-assisted writing lesson planning in light of the key findings. 5.1 Cognitive process of AI-assisted lesson planning for L2 writing among K-12 teachers Regarding the first research question, among the four main cognitive components involved in teachers’ lesson planning with GenAI assistance, Planning of teaching components showed the highest frequency, followed by Reflection on teaching and learning . This finding aligns with the results of Contreras et al. ( 2020 ). Within this cognitive process, we found that Chinese teachers exhibited the highest cognitive frequency in Planning of learning content , which was also the most frequent sub-theme across all categories. This result aligns with the findings of Peterson et al. ( 1978 ), whose study revealed that teachers spent the most time during lesson planning on content to be taught, followed by planning instructional activities. However, Zahorik ( 1975 ) demonstrated in his research on teacher planning that the most common decision-making type during lesson preparation was student activities, a result consistent with Contreras et al. ( 2020 ), who identified Planning of learning activities as the most frequent cognitive process among teachers. These discrepancies are noteworthy. Different teacher groups prioritize learning content versus activities to varying degrees, with Chinese EFL teachers focusing more on subject knowledge than on activity design. The reasons for these phenomena may be attributed to China’s traditional exam-oriented English teaching approach. The close connection between teaching and exam content, coupled with the significant pressure on both students and teachers to perform in assessments, has led some educators to adopt a “cramming” teaching style. Compared to time-consuming classroom activities, teachers tend to focus more on content knowledge directly related to exam content (Yan, 2015 ; Tan, 2020 ). Furthermore, Chinese teachers demonstrated a particularly high frequency of Reflection on teaching and learning , which ranked as the second most prevalent among the four cognitive processes. Examining teachers’ specific reflective content reveals that AI-generated materials frequently prompted additional reflection. This pattern occurred repeatedly, especially when ChatGPT-4 (lacking awareness of real student contexts) generated lesson plans incompatible with teachers’ specific student groups. The survey by Hossain and Al Younus ( 2025 ) revealed that foreign language teachers recognized ChatGPT’s outputs lacked localization awareness when using it to assist in writing instruction, requiring teachers to provide targeted guidance based on students’ actual learning needs. Similar situations frequently occurred in this study, as exemplified by T5’s comment: “ The AI’s output was excessively detailed, I’m concerned my students wouldn’t know which parts to prioritize or how to apply them .” Notably, Organizing of classroom space was notably absent in teachers’ planning, contrasting with Contreras et al.’s ( 2020 ) findings. Recent scholarly work has empirically validated the positive correlation between well-designed classroom spatial configurations and enhanced instructional effectiveness (Ellis & Goodyear, 2016 ; Chen et al., 2024 ). Scholars increasingly suggest teachers should enhance instructional effectiveness by considering spatial flexibility (Chaker & Njingang Mbadjoin, 2025 ). However, these recommendations were not implemented, possibly due to large class sizes and space constraints in Chinese classrooms. 5.2 Perceptions towards AI-assisted lesson planning for L2 writing among K-12 teachers For the second research question, teachers’ perceptions of using GenAI to assist in lesson planning were mixed, with overall negative evaluations outweighing positive ones. The most frequently mentioned advantages were Rich in content and Continuous thinking , while the most cited drawback was Lack of innovation . Chinese teachers held more negative than positive perceptions of GenAI, which contrasts with previous research on AI perceptions. Most prior studies concluded that AI predominantly benefits lesson planning, for instance, by saving teachers time, generating novel ideas, and enhancing creativity in instructional design (ElSayary, 2024 ; Hossain & Al Younus, 2025 ). This discrepancy may stem from teachers’ unfamiliarity with using GenAI for lesson planning. Although all participants engaged in a warm-up activity with ChatGPT-4 before the task, retrospective interviews revealed that these 10 teachers were using a GenAI tool like ChatGPT-4 to assist lesson planning for the first time. According to Bower et al. ( 2024 ), teachers’ awareness of AI’s capabilities positively correlates with their perceived impact on teaching, a phenomenon termed ignorance effect . This aligns with Agarwal et al.’s ( 1996 ) early finding in software adoption that users’ perceptions are directly linked to training experience. Currently, frontline EFL teachers in China’s K-12 education system have received no formal GenAI training. The advantage of ChatGPT-4 in generating rich content, as identified by teachers in the present study, has also been validated by ElSayary ( 2024 ) and Mohamed ( 2024 ), who report that educators acknowledge its capacity to produce abundant content, thereby reducing workload while providing substantial knowledge resources for language teaching. Additionally, the advantage of AI possessing Continuous thinking , as noted by Chinese teachers, is one of the key features of ChatGPT, its strong logical reasoning ability in continuous context is a defining characteristic of ChatGPT-4 (Liu et al., 2023 ). This is also one of the reasons why it was selected in this study to assist teachers in lesson planning. Lack of innovation mentioned repeatedly by several teachers in this study is a noteworthy finding, as it differed significantly from previous research on teachers’ perceptions. According to previous scholars’ research, the most frequently mentioned advantage of ChatGPT by teachers was its creativity. Teachers reported that ChatGPT generates highly creative classroom activities, significantly enriching their teaching methods. Particularly in writing instruction, teachers believed ChatGPT helps generate creative ideas and organize thoughts(Urazbayeva et al., 2024 ; Hossain & Al Younus, 2025 ). Upon closer examination of the teachers’ critiques regarding ChatGPT’s lack of creativity in this study, some comments focused on the outdated activities suggested in lesson plans. For example, T4 mentioned: “ The activities it provided me were relatively outdated, or perhaps not very suitable .” Others felt that some of the teaching theories generated by ChatGPT-4 were conventional. This discrepancy may be related to the participant demographics. All teachers in this study were from economically developed regions in China, and half held postgraduate degrees, which means they already possessed a strong theoretical foundation in teaching. Since ChatGPT-4 did not substantially expand their existing knowledge base, they may have perceived its outputs as lacking innovation. 6. Conclusion This study aims to explore the cognition and perceptions of EFL teachers in China’s K-12 education context when designing writing lesson plans with the assistance of Generative AI (GenAI). The findings showed that the most frequent cognitive process teachers engage in when using GenAI for lesson planning is planning teaching components, with the greatest focus placed on teaching content. Another prominent cognitive activity involves reflection on teaching and learning, where GenAI-generated lesson content appears to intensify teachers’ reflective practices. Regarding perceptions of GenAI, teachers expressed mixed attitudes, with overall more negative than positive assessments. These findings provide several important pedagogical implications. Future K-12 EFL teachers should strive for a balanced approach between instructional content and teaching activities while enhancing their awareness of classroom spatial planning during lesson design. When planning lessons with GenAI assistance, educators can improve the rationality of each instructional component by incorporating more balanced and well-structured template prompts. In this study, teachers held more negative than positive perceptions toward GenAI, with all participants being first-time users of GenAI for instructional support. As only with sufficient knowledge and competencies in AI interaction can educators objectively assess its contributions to teaching and learning, hence teacher professional development programs should integrate AI awareness and skills training(Celik, 2023 ; Arslan, 2025 ). K-12 teachers should receive systematic training in AI applications to enhance their prompt design capabilities, develop critical discernment in evaluating AI-generated content, and foster collaborative human-AI innovation models. Despite the significance, limitations also exist in this study. With only 10 in-service teachers included, the small sample size restricts the generalizability of the findings. Future research should expand the sample size. Additionally, Chinese teachers’ predominantly negative perceptions warrant deeper exploration beyond technical proficiency. As perceptions are shaped by sociocultural and environmental factors (Norenzayan et al., 2007 ; Lee et al., 2013 ), future studies should expand cross-cultural comparisons to examine how Eastern-Western educational philosophies influence AI utilization patterns. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The research strictly adhered to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and obtained ethical approval from the Academic Ethics Committee at Shanghai Normal University. After understanding the aims of the study, the participants provided their online informed consent for participation in the research. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to the inclusion of sensitive participant information. Reasonable requests for data access may be directed to the corresponding author. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Funding The authors declare that no funding was received. Authors’ contributions E.Z. was primarily responsible for the study design, data collection, and drafting the main manuscript, while Y.Y. was mainly responsible for the study design, data verification and analysis, as well as revising the manuscript for content. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements We sincerely appreciate all the participants who took part in the present study. References Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., ... & McGrew, B. (2023). Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 . Agarwal, R., Prasad, J., & Zanino, M. C. (1996). Training experiences and usage intentions: a field study of a graphical user interface. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 45 (2), 215-241. Aguilar-Cruz, P. J., & Salas-Pilco, S. Z. (2025). Teachers’ perceptions of artificial intelligence in Colombia: AI technological access, AI teacher professional development and AI ethical awareness. Technology, Pedagogy and Education , 1-20. Arslan, S. (2025). English-as-a-Foreign Language University Instructors' Perceptions of Integrating Artificial Intelligence: A Turkish Perspective. System , 103680. Bower, M., Torrington, J., Lai, J. W., Petocz, P., & Alfano, M. (2024). How should we change teaching and assessment in response to increasingly powerful generative Artificial Intelligence? Outcomes of the ChatGPT teacher survey. Education and Information Technologies , 29 (12), 15403-15439. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology , 3 (2), 77-101. Bubaš, G., Čižmešija, A., & Kovačić, A. (2023). Development of an assessment scale for measurement of usability and user experience characteristics of Bing chat conversational AI. Future Internet, 16(1), 4. Celik, I. (2023). Towards Intelligent-TPACK: An empirical study on teachers’ professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools into education. Computers in human behavior , 138 , 107468. Chaker, R., & Njingang Mbadjoin, T. (2025). Integrating school robots in K12 education: the effects on spatial configuration and social interactions. Technology, Pedagogy and Education , 1-20. Chen, H. G., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Chen, J. V. (2009). Reducing software requirement perception gaps through coordination mechanisms. Journal of Systems and Software , 82 (4), 650-655. Chen, H., Chen, J., & Chiang, F. K. (2024). A study on the influence of learning space on students' intrinsic learning motivation. European Journal of Education , 59 (3), e12652. Clark, C. M. (1984). Teachers' thought processes (No. 72). Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 53. Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teacher thinking. Educational researcher , 17 (2), 5-12. Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1977). Research on teacher thinking. Curriculum inquiry , 7 (4), 279-304. C Meniado, J. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on English language teaching, learning, and assessment: A rapid review of literature. Arab World English Journals (AWEJ) Volume , 14 . Contreras, K., Arredondo, C., Díaz, C., Inostroza, M. J., & Strickland, B. (2020). Examining differences between pre-and in-service teachers’ cognition when lesson planning. System , 91 , 102240. Cotton, D., & Gresty, K. (2006). Reflecting on the think‐aloud method for evaluating e‐learning. British Journal of Educational Technology , 37 (1), 45-54. Dornburg, A., & Davin, K. J. (2024). ChatGPT in foreign language lesson plan creation: Trends, variability, and historical biases. ReCALL , 1-16. Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Models of learning space: Integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. Review of Education , 4 (2), 149-191. ElSayary, A. (2024). An investigation of teachers' perceptions of using ChatGPT as a supporting tool for teaching and learning in the digital era. Journal of computer assisted learning , 40 (3), 931-945. Ericsson, K. A. (2017). Protocol analysis. A companion to cognitive science , 425-432. Geng, F., Yu, S., Liu, C., & Liu, Z. (2022). Teaching and learning writing in English as a foreign language (EFL) school education contexts: A thematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66 (3), 491-504. Guo, K., Zhong, Y., Qin, J., & Chu, S. K. W. (2025). Investigating EFL teachers’ lesson planning for chatbot-assisted learning of argumentative writing: a TPACK perspective. Interactive Learning Environments , 33 (2), 1520-1541. Hall, T. J., & Smith, M. A. (2006). Teacher planning, instruction and refl ection: what we know about teacher cognitive processes. Quest, 58(4), 424-442. Hashem, R., Ali, N., El Zein, F., Fidalgo, P., & Khurma, O. A. (2024). AI to the rescue: Exploring the potential of ChatGPT as a teacher ally for workload relief and burnout prevention. Research & Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 19. Hew, K. F., Huang, W., Du, J., & Jia, C. (2023). Using chatbots to support student goal setting and social presence in fully online activities: Learner engagement and perceptions. Journal of Computing in Higher Education , 35 (1), 40-68. Hossain, M. K., & Al Younus, M. A. (2025). Teachers’ perspectives on integrating ChatGPT into EFL writing instruction. TESOL Communications, 4(1), 41-60. Hu, B., Zheng, L., Zhu, J., Ding, L., Wang, Y., & Gu, X. (2024). Teaching plan generation and evaluation with GPT-4: Unleashing the potential of LLM in instructional design. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies . Kohnke, L. (2023). L2 learners' perceptions of a chatbot as a potential independent language learning tool. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation , 17 (1-2), 214-226. Lee, I. (2022). Developments in classroom-based research on L2 writing. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching , 12 (4), 551-574. Lee, Y. T., McCauley, C. R., & Draguns, J. G. (2013). Personality and person perception across cultures . Psychology Press. Liu, H., Ning, R., Teng, Z., Liu, J., Zhou, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Evaluating the logical reasoning ability of chatgpt and gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03439. Liu, X. H. (2020). A Survey on the Use of Evidence-based Teaching Practices for Writing by High School EFL Teachers. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice , (04),58-64. Lo, C. K., Yu, P. L. H., Xu, S., Ng, D. T. K., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2024). Exploring the application of ChatGPT in ESL/EFL education and related research issues: a systematic review of empirical studies. Smart Learning Environments , 11 (1), 50. Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education sciences , 13(4), 410. MEI, D. (2022). Understanding the Nature and Rationale of China’s English Curriculum-An Explicit Interpretation of English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (2022 Edition). Journal of Teacher Education , 9(3), 104-111. Mohamed, A. M. (2024). Exploring the potential of an AI-based Chatbot (ChatGPT) in enhancing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching: perceptions of EFL Faculty Members. Education and Information Technologies , 29 (3), 3195-3217. Nguyen, C. T. K. (2019). Overview of second and foreign language writing: Characteristics, perspectives and pedagogical approaches. Journal of Asia TEFL , 16 (3), 1059. Norenzayan, A., Choi, I., & Peng, K. (2007). Perception and cognition. Handbook of cultural psychology , 569-594. Okulu, H. Z., & Muslu, N. (2024). Designing a course for pre-service science teachers using ChatGPT: What ChatGPT brings to the table. Interactive Learning Environments , 32 (10), 7450-7467. Parasuraman, B. (2024). Introduction to Generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs). In Mastering Spring AI: The Java Developer’s Guide for Large Language Models and Generative AI (pp. 1-34). Berkeley, CA: Apress. Peikos, G., & Stavrou, D. (2025). ChatGPT for Science Lesson Planning: An Exploratory Study Based on Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Education Sciences , 15(3), 338. Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W., & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American educational research journal , 15 (3), 417-432. Salih, S., Husain, O., Hamdan, M., Abdelsalam, S., Elshafie, H., & Motwakel, A. (2024). Transforming Education with AI: A Systematic Review of ChatGPT's Role in Learning, Academic Practices, and Institutional Adoption. Results in Engineering , 103837. Sanderson, K. (2023). GPT-4 is here: what scientists think. Nature , 615 (7954), 773. Shi, L., Ding, A. C., & Choi, I. (2024). Investigating teachers’ use of an AI-Enabled system and their perceptions of AI integration in science classrooms: a case study. Education Sciences , 14 (11), 1187. Şimşek, N. (2025). Integration of ChatGPT in mathematical story-focused 5E lesson planning: Teachers and pre-service teachers' interactions with ChatGPT. Education and Information Technologies , 1-72. Stemler, S. (2000). An overview of content analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation , 7 (1). Taani, O., & Alabidi, S. (2024). ChatGPT in education: Benefits and challenges of ChatGPT for mathematics and science teaching practices. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology , 1-30. Tan, C. (2020). Beyond high-stakes exam: A neo-Confucian educational programme and its contemporary implications. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(2), 137-148. Tseng, Y. C., & Lin, Y. H. (2024). Enhancing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Learners' Writing with ChatGPT: A University-Level Course Design. Electronic Journal of e-Learning , 22 (2), 78-97. Tyler, R. W. (1950). Basic princeplesof curriculum and instruction. University od Chicago, Chicago . Urazbayeva, G., Kussainova, R., Aibergen, A., Kaliyeva, A., & Kantayeva, G. (2024). Innovation Off the Bat: Bridging the ChatGPT Gap in Digital Competence among English as a Foreign Language Teachers. Education Sciences, 14(9), 946. Uysal, B. Ç. B., & Yüksel, İ. (2024). AI-powered lesson planning: Insights from future EFL teachers. In AI in Language Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (pp. 101-132). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. Wing-mui So, W. (1997). A study of teacher cognition in planning elementary science lessons. Research in Science Education , 27 , 71-86. Yan, J., & Goh, H. H. (2023). Exploring the cognitive processes in teacher candidates' collaborative task-based lesson planning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 136, 104365. Yan, C. (2015). We can’t change much unless the exams change’: Teachers’ dilemmas in the curriculum reform in China. Improving Schools, 18(1), 5-19. Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning. The elementary school journal , 80(3), 107-127. Zahorik, J. (1975). Teachers' planning models. Educational leadership, 33, 134-139. Zaiarna, I., Zhyhadlo, O., & Dunaievska, O. (2024). ChatGPT in foreign language teaching and assessment: exploring EFL instructors’ experience. Information Technologies and Learning Tools , 4 (102), 176-191. Zhang, L. J., & Zhang, D. (2019). Think-aloud protocols. In The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 302-311). Routledge. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6932636","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":490491672,"identity":"1fd3c83e-f878-4522-87b0-2a9b05a1cdcf","order_by":0,"name":"Enyi Zhu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanghai Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Enyi","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhu","suffix":""},{"id":490491673,"identity":"0d423a2f-9509-400c-8665-43bb620a895c","order_by":1,"name":"Yi Yang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanghai Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yi","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-19 15:38:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932636/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932636/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87586708,"identity":"90084b9b-0338-440f-9241-f57175ccb32d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-25 13:57:02","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":80022,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe screenshot of teacher-ChatGPT-4 interactions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6932636/v1/851d9c7d84c80977c4f76937.png"},{"id":88843656,"identity":"519b5d5c-b3a5-4f12-a7ce-0cadf0d64222","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-12 03:23:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1293561,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6932636/v1/70a94ae3-7b12-4437-ad75-81a5ebfd9461.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Chinese K-12 EFL teachers’ use of AI for writing lesson planning: Cognition and Perceptions in Practice","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSince the release of ChatGPT in 2022, GenAI has brought a fundamental revaluation to educational landscapes (Bower et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Powered by Large Language Models (LLMs), GenAI tools are altering current instructional approaches, learning modalities, and assessment frameworks across various disciplinary learning and instruction (Okulu \u0026amp; Muslu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Şimşek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Taani \u0026amp; Alabidi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Given this transformative paradigm shift, scholarly attention has increasingly focused on examining GenAI applications in second language(L2) pedagogy across diverse learner populations and language domains, especially writing learning and instructions in tertiary-level education (Zaiarna et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Tseng \u0026amp; Lin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Although previous literature has documented the effectiveness as well as limitations of GenAI tools in L2 writing learning and teaching, relevant research specifically addressing how EFL teachers employ and perceive GenAI tools while designing K-12 L2 writing lessons remains insufficient so far (Lo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; C Meniado, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to the academic significance, addressing this issue is also pedagogically important for EFL educators. In primary and secondary education, writing acquisition has been widely regarded as a compulsory element of L2 pedagogy ( Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Geng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Taking China as an example, the \u003cem\u003eEnglish Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (2022 Edition)\u003c/em\u003e specifies writing proficiency as an essential competency for EFL students in primary and secondary education (MEI, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). However, Chinese secondary school EFL teachers were generally reluctant to devote substantial time to writing instruction and rarely incorporated technological tools to support writing pedagogy (Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The advent of the AI era makes it particularly imperative to investigate L2 writing teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional preparation in this new context. To advance EFL writing pedagogy, this study aimed to explore how exactly front-line Chinese secondary EFL teachers utilized GenAI in their lesson planning by examining their thinking process and perception of its usage. As previous scholars have pointed out, researching teachers\u0026rsquo; cognitive processes provides insights into instructional practices by revealing how environmental shifts influence pedagogy(Clark, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Hall \u0026amp; Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The advent of the AI era makes it particularly imperative to investigate L2 writing teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional preparation in this new environment. Simultaneously, studying technology users\u0026rsquo; perceptions remains fundamental for product development (Agarwal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Chen, 2009). To address these major concerns, this study aims to investigate the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch question 1: What are the cognitive processes of Chinese EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; lesson planning for writing while using GenAI (e.g., ChatGPT-4)?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch question 2: What are teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the role of ChatGPT-4 during lesson planning?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Cognitive process of lesson planning for EFL learning\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study of teachers\u0026rsquo; lesson planning has a long tradition. The standardization of curriculum planning began with Tyler (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1950\u003c/span\u003e), who proposed rational steps for teachers to plan instruction, including selecting learning objectives, organizing learning instruction, and evaluating learning experiences. Zahorik (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e) further argued that teachers\u0026rsquo; decision-making during curriculum planning most frequently involved designing student activities, and that instructional practices were not always derived from predetermined objectives. With the education research proceeding, scholarly attention has been gradually paid to teachers\u0026rsquo; thinking process through the lens of cognitive psychology, with cognitive models in lesson planning established (Clark \u0026amp; Yinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e; Yinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e). Previous curriculum theorists (Clark, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e; Wing-mui, 1997) noted that the ultimate goal of studying teachers\u0026rsquo; thought processes is to construct a cognitive psychology framework for educators and offer educators profound perspectives to enhance educational quality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecent years have witnessed increasing cognitive research into EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; psychological process during instructional design. For instance, Contreras et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) compared cognitive differences between pre-service and in-service secondary school teachers in lesson planning. Their findings highlight that pre-service English teachers in Chile tend to develop more detailed lesson plans during instructional design. Yan and Goh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) explored the cognitive processes of pre-service Chinese language teachers during collaborative lesson planning. The study found that teacher candidates engaged in both macro- and micro-level cognitive processes, and enhanced their lesson plans by challenging and building on others\u0026rsquo; ideas. Based on the two existing studies related to EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; cognitive processes in lesson planning, scholars have primarily focused on general L2 learning, leaving research specifically targeting L2 writing instruction a gap in the field. Yet, existing research on L2 writing predominantly concentrates on tertiary education contexts, leaving the study of L2 writing lesson planning in K-12 settings critically underexplored (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 GenAI and lesson planning for EFL learning\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe emergence of LLMs in recent years represents a groundbreaking breakthrough in natural language processing (NLP) and generative tasks within the field of artificial intelligence. As a deep learning model, LLMs can respond to questions by understanding contextual information (Parasuraman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Currently, the most representative LLMs are the GPT series developed by OpenAI, which simulates human-like interactions based on user input and has been widely applied across various disciplines (Lo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The integration of ChatGPT into education has undoubtedly captured significant attention among practitioners, as it demonstrates remarkable capabilities in assisting teaching and learning, enhancing academic writing, curriculum planning, academic assessment, and fostering professional development for educators (ElSayary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Salih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In the domain of curriculum design, previous studies documented the substantial benefits of ChatGPT for lesson preparation, pedagogical strategies, and teaching methodologies in various subjects, such as science (Okulu \u0026amp; Muslu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Peikos \u0026amp; Stavrou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), mathematics (Hu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Şimşek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) and language learning (Guo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Mohamed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e ).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the field of language education, a study conducted by scholars at a Turkish university examined 43 pre-service EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; evaluation of ChatGPT-generated lesson plans. Based on the same instructions, ChatGPT produced 43 different lesson plans for an English writing class. In the end, the 43 participants highlighted the advantages of AI-assisted lesson plans in enhancing engagement, adaptability, and overall structure, while also identifying challenges in differentiation and assessment (Uysal \u0026amp; Y\u0026uuml;ksel,2024). Dornburg and Davin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) investigated the characteristics, variability, and weaknesses of foreign language lesson plans generated by ChatGPT through zero-prompt generation, finding that the AI-produced lesson plans reflected outdated script recitation patterns and failed to align with practical teaching requirements. It is evident that in the field of language education, previous research primarily focuses on analyzing the content quality of GenAI-generated lesson plans. Recently, scholars attached increasing attention to teachers\u0026rsquo; lesson planning process with GenAI assistance from a human-computer interaction perspective. For instance, Guo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) investigated how Chinese EFL teachers integrated chatbots into their instructional planning for argumentative writing. Their findings revealed that teachers designed diverse learning activities by combining chatbots with various instructional strategies, such as chatbot-assisted writing practice and chatbot-supported debate activities. Teachers\u0026rsquo; professional knowledge helped identify chatbot\u0026rsquo;s limitations, which they addressed by adding more chatbot interactions. However, this study was conducted under higher education contexts. We remain unclear about the process of lesson planning for L2 writing among K-12 in-service teachers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3 Teachers\u0026rsquo; perception of GenAI in language learning and teaching\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to existing research, users\u0026rsquo; willingness to adopt GenAI is closely associated with their perceptions (Bubaš, 2023). It is known that understanding educators\u0026rsquo; perceptions of GenAI-assisted instruction within emerging technological environments is essential for fully realizing its pedagogical potential (Shi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Aguilar-Cruz \u0026amp; Salas-Pilco, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In language education contexts, there is a growing body of research on users\u0026rsquo; (including learners and teachers) perceptions of GenAI(see Mohamed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, Kohnke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) examined Hong Kong higher education L2 learners\u0026rsquo; perceptions of chatbots, revealing their positive attitudes toward GenAI based on personal interaction experiences. Hew et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), in their study examining EFL students\u0026rsquo; use of chatbots for online listening learning, demonstrated the pedagogical advantages of chatbots in supporting online language acquisition. Learners reported positive learning experiences with the chatbot technology, particularly highlighting its perceived usefulness and ease. From teachers\u0026rsquo; perspective, Mohamed (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) synthesized existing research on AI integration in English language teaching, concluding that some university EFL teachers recognize ChatGPT\u0026rsquo;s value in quickly answering diverse questions, yet others express concerns about its potential to hinder students\u0026rsquo; critical thinking development, research skills cultivation, and risks of disseminating biases and misinformation. Zaiarna et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) explored EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; experiences and perceptions of using ChatGPT in teaching and assessment at the university level. The results revealed that teachers exhibited varying levels of confidence depending on their familiarity with ChatGPT, though overall satisfaction remained relatively high. More recently, Arslan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a study through questionnaires on artificial intelligence literacy and interviews on usage perceptions involving 230 Turkish EFL university teachers. The findings revealed that these Turkish EFL teachers generally lacked relevant knowledge and competencies, demonstrating a moderate level of self-perceived ability in using AI. The teachers expressed a desire to improve their skills in applying AI technology to pedagogical practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, most existing research concentrates on tertiary-level language education in general, with less empirical attention devoted to K-12 EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of GenAI use during specific practices such as lesson planning. Only by integrating GenAI into a broader educational framework and considering the perceptions of diverse participant samples across different foreign language teaching contexts, particularly in primary and secondary language education and specific instructional settings, can we gain a comprehensive understanding of GenAI\u0026rsquo;s impact on language education. (Mohamed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Lo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eQualitative research methods were adopted in this study. For the first research question, the think-aloud protocol method was employed to capture teachers\u0026rsquo; real-time cognitive activities. For the second research question, retrospective interviews served as the main methodological approach to investigate teachers\u0026rsquo; perception of AI usage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study involved a total of 10 Chinese EFL teachers(9 females and 1 male), with an average age of 30 years. All participants were in-service English teachers engaged in China\u0026rsquo;s K-12 compulsory education, including two teachers from primary schools and eight from secondary schools (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDetailed information about participating teachers\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ecode\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(21\u0026ndash;30\\\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;40\\\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e41\u0026ndash;50\\\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eover 50 years old)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation background\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching experience (1\u0026ndash;5\\\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;10\\\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eover 10 years)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThink aloud duration (minutes)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterview duration (minutes)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLength of the lesson plan\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(words)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eundergraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOver 10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003epostgraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e778\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003epostgraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e986\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003epostgraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2598\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eundergraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e109\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1910\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eundergraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1644\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eundergraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOver 10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e929\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eundergraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOver 10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e775\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003epostgraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e797\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003epostgraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2480\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.1 Lesson planning task\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study assigned a lesson preparation task to participants, requiring them to design a 45-minute English writing lesson plan with ChatGPT-4. The given task required the following:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYou are now an English teacher of a certain class, use ChatGPT-4 to assist you in designing a 45-minute English writing lesson plan.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were required to type their lesson plans using e-documents and submit the electronic lesson plan files to researchers upon completion. As these teachers currently teach different grade levels, no specific writing themes or materials were prescribed, nor were time constraints imposed on the preparation duration. The lesson plan format did not require specific templates or language specifications. These minimal restrictions were aimed at authentically replicating teachers' natural GenAI assisted lesson planning scenarios.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2 Think aloud method\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe think-aloud technique is currently recognized as originating from cognitive psychology. The theory of think-aloud protocols by Ericsson and Simon provides crucial theoretical support for the use of this method in cognitive psychology research, as well as for investigating problem-solving processes (Cotton \u0026amp; Gresty, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). According to Ericsson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), the think-aloud protocol refers to the verbalization of an individual\u0026rsquo;s thought processes and sequential actions while performing a cognitive task, with these verbal reports recorded either concurrently during the task or retrospectively after its completion. This study focuses on teachers\u0026rsquo; cognitive processes during GenAI-assisted lesson preparation tasks. As this process does not involve physical actions beyond computer operations, the think-aloud protocol serves as an appropriate methodological approach.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.3 Retrospective interview\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearchers also critiqued that think-aloud are not able to completely capture participants\u0026rsquo; thinking process during a certain problem-solving task (see Zhang \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In light of this point, retrospective interviews were employed as a supplementary method to compensate for potential gaps in teachers\u0026rsquo; incomplete verbal reporting during their solo cognitive processes. The interviews were divided into two main sections. The first section focuses on teachers\u0026rsquo; cognitive processes during lesson preparation, specifically examining instances where they pause to provide verbal reports. The second section centers on teachers\u0026rsquo; experiences and perceptions while using GenAI. Example reference questions include:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHow did you perceive these questions? And what was the intended purpose of these three questions?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHow did you feel about the framework generated by the AI at that moment?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.4 ChatGPT-4\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eChatGPT-4, developed by OpenAI in 2023, represents a significant advancement over its predecessor ChatGPT-3.5. As a multimodal large language model, it generates text, images, and computer code in response to diverse prompts, demonstrating human-level performance across professional and academic benchmarks (Sanderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Achiam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). ChatGPT-4\u0026rsquo;s exceptional language comprehension and generative capabilities have been proven effective in assisting teachers by generating high-quality lesson plans and materials based on inputs such as course content, learning objectives, and pedagogical theories (Hashem et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). A representative screenshot of teacher-ChatGPT-4 interactions is provided in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Data collection\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe 10 EFL teachers received pre-task training covering both the think-aloud methodology and GenAI (ChatGPT-4) operations, given their limited prior experience with these tools, to ensure protocol fidelity during implementation. Before starting the task, teachers entered the online meeting room and simultaneously activated their computers\u0026rsquo; shared desktop function. At this point, researchers in the meeting room could observe the teachers\u0026rsquo; computer operation interfaces and hear their voices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfterwards, the formal data collection was conducted, during which participating teachers were required to design a 45-minute writing lesson with the assistance of ChatGPT-4. Subsequently, the teachers performed the operational tasks while verbally reporting their thoughts aloud. No language restrictions were imposed during the think-aloud verbal reports, with all teachers opting to conduct their oral reporting in Chinese. The entire process was recorded by researchers using the meeting room\u0026rsquo;s screen-recording functionality. Throughout this period, researchers did not interrupt the teachers to avoid excessive interference with participants\u0026rsquo; cognitive processes, thereby ensuring the accuracy of the think-aloud data. The average duration of think-aloud lesson planning was 48 minutes (\u003cem\u003eSD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.0\u003c/em\u003e), yielding 10 complete lesson plans of totaling 13,390 words.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the final phase, retrospective interviews were employed to provide supplementary information on participants\u0026rsquo; cognitive processes and perceptions towards AI. Researchers replayed the screen-recorded video from the online meeting and invited teachers to collaboratively review their think-aloud recordings. Questions during the interview were tailored to teachers\u0026rsquo; specific operations observed in the video. The whole data collection was audio-recorded for subsequent analysis. These interviews had an average duration of 31 minutes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4 Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address the first research question, the researchers employed content analysis approach. These think-aloud protocols were generated from automatically transcribed videos recorded during online meetings on a web platform. The researchers meticulously reviewed the transcriptions against the video recordings multiple times to ensure accuracy of wordings. The researchers adopted the coding method proposed by Contreras et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), which is suitable for cognitive processes involved in curriculum planning. This coding framework includes 5 main categories and 20 sub-categories, with full specifications provided in Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec16\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4.1\u003c/span\u003e (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). NVivo 15 was adopted for data analysis. Following Stemler\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) concise guidelines for ensuring coding reliability, the procedure included having two researchers independently review the materials and list discrepancies in a checklist. After discussing and merging their opinions, they independently performed the coding. Therefore, in the initial phase of this study, two doctoral candidate authors from Shanghai Normal University independently coded two randomly selected participant reports. Once inter-coder reliability exceeded 95%, large-scale coding proceeded, ultimately ensuring the reliability and stability of the data processing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the second research question, thematic analysis was employed. Thematic analysis is a research methodology grounded in the systematic identification, analysis, and reporting of patterns (themes) within qualitative data. As outlined by Braun and Clarke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), this approach involves a six-phase iterative process including familiarizing with your data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes and producing the report. The same two coders first independently reviewed the data collected from participants. After familiarizing themselves with the dataset, they applied their professional expertise as well as prior literature to engage in reflective and inductive analysis, systematically generating preliminary themes and sub-themes. These themes and sub-themes underwent multiple rounds of collaborative refinement until achieving over 92% inter-coder agreement, after which the final report was generated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section involved two parts. The first part addressed the first research question, focusing on teachers\u0026rsquo; cognitive processes in designing lesson plans with AI assistance. The second part addressed teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions on the experience of utilizing GenAI tools for planning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Cognitive process of AI-assisted lesson planning\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThrough statistical analysis of cognitive frequencies, we observe that among all sub-themes, \u003cem\u003ePlanning of learning conten\u003c/em\u003et accumulated the highest frequency, being mentioned 106 times by teachers. Following this, the sub-theme \u003cem\u003eReflecting about students\u003c/em\u003e ranked second with 89, while \u003cem\u003ePlanning of learning activity\u003c/em\u003e occupied third place with 87 mentions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research data can be systematically organized and reported across four thematic modules aligned with the following categories: \u003cem\u003eGeneral aspect of lesson planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePlanning of teaching component\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eOrganization of other teaching components\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eReflection on teaching and learning\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThemes and sub-themes of cognitive processes of AI-assisted lesson planning\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThemes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSub-themes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExemplary quotes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal by category\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGeneral aspects of lesson planning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanning of general information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI just write writing lessons. I write writing lesson plans for primary school English. We have been talking about how to protect the Earth recently. (T 3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsing English when lesson planning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI\u0026rsquo;m going to design a writing class. First, I need to find an English topic. I want to see that we have been learning unit five recently and there happens to be a writing article. So I\u0026rsquo;ll find a topic first, a smart home devices. (T 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsing Chinglish when lesson planning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt must be in English or Chinese. (T 9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsing Chinese when lesson planning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstructions must be given to him. Chinese slogans. (T 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReversing and editing of lesson planning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBrother works in a gymnasium. It seems that I can\u0026rsquo;t modify his form. Let me take a look at sams as fathers brother. Then I\u0026rsquo;ll revise my model essay. (T 5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanning of teaching components\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanning of resources and materials\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt so happens that this unit in our new textbook is exactly the previous one, and then last week, the seventh grade was included in our new textbook. (T 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e367\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanning of aims\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is an English writing teaching plan, consisting of three goals teaching objectives: knowledge objectives, skill objectives, and emotional objectives. (T 4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanning of learning content\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe main content is that as the principal, this invitation letter was written by the principal to the parents. Let them participate the completion activity of the new library in their school. (T 6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e106\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanning of learning activity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents read the opening paragraph of the story together, discuss the story in groups, students represent their groups to read their stories, groups share student stories. (T 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanning of methodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA better design is to write a paragraph related to the topic of a similar model essay, show the students that model essay. (T 7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanning of assessment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents exchange book reviews for reading and provide constructive feedback. They can first give a demonstration in the class and then make an extension after the class. (T 7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganization of other teaching components\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSequencing of planning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSentence structure, and then the following is a writing process, the student begins to write, look at the top is number three. (T 5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e110\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizing of classroom space\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizing of classroom time\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen the activity process is 45 minutes, this text seems to be 40 minutes, then I think it will take at least 20 minutes to comb this article. (T 10)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizing own ideas\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLet me get this essay down first. Then let me see what needs to be refined. (T 3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflection on teaching and learning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflecting about lesson planning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome people\u0026rsquo;s lesson plans only write a few rather rough points. I think if you write them in more detail, it\u0026rsquo;s actually equivalent to having more room for thinking. You will think only when you write in detail. (T 5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e281\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflecting about learning activities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI think this group discussion is still very good, first of all. At the end, there is actually a section equivalent to proof reading, which allows students to read to each other by themselves.(T 6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflecting about resources and materials\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI would think that since our teaching materials have such a design, we can quote this idea very well. I haven\u0026rsquo;t seen such a course either. (T 4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflecting about students\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd without a direction to guide it, discussing feelings can not discuss results. If there are too many discussions, students may become silent. (T 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelf-reflecting of own teaching skills\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is based on the original teaching experience, that is in the process of our teaching design and a teaching template of our current standard, so I reflected it best in my mind at that time. (T 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.1 General aspect of lesson planning\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first section \u003cem\u003eGeneral aspect of lesson planning\u003c/em\u003e refers to the consideration of information such as the format, language, and revision process when lesson planning. The frequency of this theme was recorded 86 times in all, takes the proportion of whole frequency with 10.19%.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong these, the first sub-theme, \u003cem\u003ePlanning of general information\u003c/em\u003e, refers to teachers\u0026rsquo; self-introduction in the initial stage of the lesson planning, as well as some conditions involved in lesson preparations. This process was coded 26 times. From the quoted examples in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, we can observe that T3 attempted to determine basic instructional information by recalling their recent teaching practices at the very beginning of the task. Data shows that multiple teachers engaged in recalling their recent teaching practices throughout the initial phase of the task and attempted to transfer these reflections into their planning of the task. Additionally, some teachers chose to have ChatGPT assist with planning right from the initial stage. As T9 put it:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFirst, I asked him to write a framework for me. I made some modifications on his framework and designed a 45-minute lesson plan with the title My dream smart home. (T 9)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, T9 began editing the instructions for ChatGPT-4 immediately after reporting. Many other teachers also went through this cognitive process at the start of the task, organizing their thoughts while issuing commands to ChatGPT-4 during the planning of general information.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding the languages employed in lesson planning among the ten participants, the data showed that only one teacher exclusively used English, six adopted Chinese blending with English, while three utilized Chinese exclusively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe process of \u003cem\u003eReversing and editing of lesson planning\u003c/em\u003e means teachers using various resources (such as books, the Internet, outlines, etc.) to revise or improve their lesson plans during the lesson planning process. Coding analysis of think-aloud protocols documented 50 coded references of lesson plan refinements across the participant cohort. From Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, we can see that T 5 made revisions to the teaching content of the lesson plan, while most of the other modifications were related to teachers\u0026rsquo; corrections of formatting and text editing. Below is an example of this process:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWhat\u0026rsquo;s going on with this font? I need to change the font. (T 10)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.2 Planning of teaching components\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlanning of teaching components\u003c/em\u003e was the most frequently mentioned section by teachers. It refers to the planning of the main elements of the lesson, such as the aims, activities, methodology, assessment, language content, and the resources and materials used in the lesson. As the most emphasized section by teachers, it was mentioned a total of 367 times.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe process of \u003cem\u003ePlanning of learning content\u003c/em\u003e refers to teachers\u0026rsquo; planning of students\u0026rsquo; learning content, which primarily includes grammar and vocabulary, as well as knowledge related to the current writing lesson that can expand students' writing content. This cognitive process was the most frequently mentioned by teachers in this section, coded 106 times in total, making it the highest among all cognitive frequencies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first cognitive process of this section, \u003cem\u003ePlanning of resources and materials\u003c/em\u003e, was coded 29 times. As illustrated by the quoted examples in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, nearly every teacher mentioned the planning of PPTs, and many also referenced textbooks and worksheets. However, none mentioned handwritten blackboards, which is a noteworthy phenomenon to highlight.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlanning of aims\u003c/em\u003e, as a cognitive process, was mentioned by all 10 teachers, with a total of 42 mentions. However, the order in which teachers addressed it varied significantly. Observations revealed that some teachers began planning objectives only after completing all other sections of their lesson plans, while others addressed objective planning during the initial stages of the task. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, multiple Chinese teachers decomposed objectives into three categories: knowledge objectives, skill objectives, and emotional objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cognitive process of \u003cem\u003ePlanning of learning activity\u003c/em\u003e is the second most frequent cognitive process in this section. It was coded 87 times in total. These 10 teachers planned a variety of instructional activities, with group discussions being the most commonly used, as exemplified in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cem\u003ePlanning of methodology\u003c/em\u003e typically involves teachers\u0026rsquo; monitoring, providing feedback, and demonstrating teaching practices, among other actions. This process was mentioned 42 times in total. As the final cognitive process in this section, \u003cem\u003ePlanning of assessment\u003c/em\u003e, was mentioned 61 times in total. This process typically involves teachers using various strategies to assess students\u0026rsquo; mastery of instructional objectives. Notably, nearly every teacher mentioned homework as an assessment method, while small group peer evaluation was a frequently cited approach for classroom assessment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.3 Organization of other teaching components\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe theme \u003cem\u003eOrganization of other teaching components\u003c/em\u003e involves the organization of other elements apart from the learning activities themselves, such as time management, space organization, organizing teachers\u0026rsquo; own ideas and sequencing the lesson plan. This section comprises four cognitive processes, with their aggregate frequency totaling 110 times, accouting for 13.03% of total coded cognitive processes. The first cognitive process \u003cem\u003eSequencing of planning\u003c/em\u003e refers to the process of organizing the components of a lesson in a logical, coherent, and pedagogically effective sequence. Some teachers might make statements similar to the following quoted remarks:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSentence structure, and then the following is a writing process, the student begins to write, look at the top is number three. (T 5)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe process of \u003cem\u003eOrganizing classroom space\u003c/em\u003e refers to the arrangement and management of the physical environment within a classroom. This cognitive process was not mentioned by any teacher. However, the process of \u003cem\u003eOrganizing of classroom time\u003c/em\u003e was mentioned by 8 participant teachers for a total of 31 times. Additionally, two teachers made no mention of course time arrangement during their lesson planning. This observation was explored in retrospective interviews, where one teacher admitted oversight, while the other dismissed its necessity, emphasizing reliance on an internal sense of timing. The cognitive process of \u003cem\u003eOrganizing own ideas\u003c/em\u003e denotes teachers internally adjusting their ideas and verbally organizing their thoughts during the lesson planning process. 10 teachers organized their own ideas 39 times in all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.4 Reflection on teaching and learning\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe last theme \u003cem\u003eReflection on teaching and learning\u003c/em\u003e represents the process of considerating regarding their own lesson planning, own teaching skills and whether their students would react positively to the lesson being planned. This reflective process was documented 281 times, accounting for 33.31% of all cognitive process instances. In this section, the most frequently engaged cognitive process among teachers was \u003cem\u003eReflecting about students\u003c/em\u003e. All 10 teachers extensively reflected on student-related factors, imagining their current students during this process. Considerations included students\u0026rsquo; language proficiency, interest in the composition topic, and classroom engagement, as exemplified by the quoted examples in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.The cognitive process \u003cem\u003eReflecting about lesson planning\u003c/em\u003e primarily involves teachers\u0026rsquo; reflections on the rationality of teaching segments and organizational structure. Here, each teacher reflected on this an average of 5.7 times, with typical quoted examples shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cognitive process \u003cem\u003eReflecting about learning activities\u003c/em\u003e was mentioned 47 times, focusing on teachers\u0026rsquo; reflections on the purpose, significance, and effectiveness of activities. Among the 10 teachers, a common consideration was whether students could actively engage in the instructional activities they designed, as illustrated by representative examples in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cem\u003eReflecting about resources and materials\u003c/em\u003e was the least frequent cognitive activity in this section, coded 35 times by 9 teachers, with one teacher never engaging this cognitive process at all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe final cognitive process, \u003cem\u003eSelf-reflecting of own teaching skills\u003c/em\u003e, refers to teachers\u0026rsquo; self-examination of their strengths and weaknesses, involving participants\u0026rsquo; awareness of their teaching competencies. This cognitive process was mentioned by all 10 teachers, with a total of 53 mentions. In addition to the examples in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, a typical quote is provided below:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSince I specialize in this field during my postgraduate studies, I tend to pay more attention to the evaluation aspect. Moreover, in some of our training sessions and public courses, teachers also apply such methods. (T 4)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Perceptions towards AI-assisted lesson planning\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding the second research question, teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions were mainly divided into positive and negative aspects with six dimensions summarized. Through the analysis of these two categories of perspectives, six thematic dimensions can be summarized: \u003cem\u003eContent Quality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLogical Reasoning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eWorking Efficiency\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePedagogical Aspect\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCreativity\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eTechnical Aspect\u003c/em\u003e. The categorization of codes related to teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives on using AI for lesson planning was similarly conducted through frequency tabulation, and the statistical outcomes are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. According to overall statistics, teachers mentioned negative perceptions of AI 28 times, significantly more than positive perceptions (17 times). Below(see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), we examine how teachers specifically described their perceptions of AI.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrequency counts of perceptions towards AI-assisted lesson planning\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDimensions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBenefits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLimitations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent Quality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRich in content\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent solidification\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDetailed content\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGeneral content\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eToo specific\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent missing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLogical Reasoning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWiden thinking\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of logic and thinking\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContinuous thinking\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorking Efficiency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh output speed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow efficiency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePedagogical Aspect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical teaching\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of consideration for learning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRich theoretical knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCreativity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNew and innovative content\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of innovation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTechnical Aspect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProblems with the text format\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, as to the perception of \u003cem\u003eContent quality\u003c/em\u003e, the positive feedback was primarily reflected in teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions that AI-generated content was rich and detailed. Positive feedback related to content quality was mentioned 5 times by teachers. The most frequently cited advantage was \u003cem\u003eRich in content\u003c/em\u003e, mentioned 4 times.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, limitations of AI which related to \u003cem\u003eContent quality\u003c/em\u003e outnumbered its benefits, with a total of 11 mentions. Some teachers perceived the content as rigid, others found it too generic or lacking depth, while some criticized it for being excessively detailed. The most frequently mentioned content quality issue was \u003cem\u003eGeneral content\u003c/em\u003e, mentioned 6 times by 4 teachers. Below is a quoted example from one teacher:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheck the students\u0026rsquo; homework and reflect here. It\u0026rsquo;s not detailed enough here. I\u0026rsquo;ll revise it bit by bit now. (T 5)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith respect to AI\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eLogical reasoning\u003c/em\u003e, positive perceptions significantly outweighed negative ones, with 4 mentions by teacher participants compared to only 1 negative remark. Teachers highly praised the continuity of AI-generated content, describing the lesson plans as \"progressive layer by layer\" and highlighting their structured design logic. Another teacher stated that AI broadened her thinking when she ran out of ideas. However, one teacher criticized AI\u0026rsquo;s lack of logical reasoning:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMaybe in the instructional design, the activities written by people will be more logical or considered. (T 4)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding \u003cem\u003eWork Efficiency\u003c/em\u003e, participating teachers mentioned it five times, with benefits and limitations being almost balanced in quantity. Some praised AI\u0026rsquo;s fast output speed, while others criticized its perceived inefficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003ePedagogical aspect\u003c/em\u003e received more positive feedback than negative feedback, primarily reflected in two strengths: rich theoretical knowledge and practical relevance to actual teaching. Here is the perspective of a teacher regarding the adaptability of AI in teaching: \u003cem\u003eI think it is more in line with the whole class process, including the design, and I found that most of them can be used. (T 8)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis teacher mentioned the advantage of AI\u0026rsquo;s \"theoretical richness\" 4 times, a point not raised by any other teachers. However, some teachers hold contrasting views. Below is a teacher\u0026rsquo;s perspective criticizing AI\u0026rsquo;s lack of consideration for student learning contexts:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSometimes the things it gave were either too verbose or too simple, so he could not consider learning, and then I told it about learning, as if it also wanted you to keep reminding it. (T 5)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding the aspect of \u003cem\u003eCreativity\u003c/em\u003e in AI, teachers\u0026rsquo; negative evaluations significantly outweighed positive feedback, with positive comments being mentioned only once compared to eight critical assessments. This was the most frequently mentioned aspect among all negative perceptions raised by teachers. Below is a representative critical comment:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI think it is still relatively regular, it\u0026rsquo;s the comparison of the paradigm of English class, basically this is traditional, certainly not innovative. (T 7)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConcerning the \u003cem\u003eTechnical Aspect dimension\u003c/em\u003e, no positive perspectives were captured from teachers. One teacher mentioned negative feedback related to technical issues twice during the usage process. Her description is quoted as follows: \u003cem\u003eI really don't like the asterisks in its quotes. Or maybe it\u0026rsquo;s the structure of this partition that makes me feel bad. (T 4)\u003c/em\u003e Notably, the browser she used differed from those of other teachers: it was the default browser on Apple\u0026rsquo;s laptops, while other teachers used various browsers on Windows OS. The AI-generated formatting issues she reported may be browser-related.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study found that, in the process of designing writing lesson plans with the assistance of GenAI, Chinese EFL teachers engaged most frequently in the cognitive activity of \u003cem\u003ePlanning of teaching components\u003c/em\u003e, followed by \u003cem\u003eReflection on teaching and learning\u003c/em\u003e. However, the \u003cem\u003eGeneral aspects of lesson planning\u003c/em\u003e was the least involved part. Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions presented a mixed state, with overall negative evaluations of ChatGPT outweighing positive ones. In the following two subsections, we will discuss teachers\u0026rsquo; cognition and perceptions during the GenAI-assisted writing lesson planning in light of the key findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1 Cognitive process of AI-assisted lesson planning for L2 writing among K-12 teachers\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding the first research question, among the four main cognitive components involved in teachers\u0026rsquo; lesson planning with GenAI assistance, \u003cem\u003ePlanning of teaching components\u003c/em\u003e showed the highest frequency, followed by \u003cem\u003eReflection on teaching and learning\u003c/em\u003e. This finding aligns with the results of Contreras et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Within this cognitive process, we found that Chinese teachers exhibited the highest cognitive frequency in \u003cem\u003ePlanning of learning content\u003c/em\u003e, which was also the most frequent sub-theme across all categories. This result aligns with the findings of Peterson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e), whose study revealed that teachers spent the most time during lesson planning on content to be taught, followed by planning instructional activities. However, Zahorik (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated in his research on teacher planning that the most common decision-making type during lesson preparation was student activities, a result consistent with Contreras et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), who identified \u003cem\u003ePlanning of learning activities\u003c/em\u003e as the most frequent cognitive process among teachers. These discrepancies are noteworthy. Different teacher groups prioritize learning content versus activities to varying degrees, with Chinese EFL teachers focusing more on subject knowledge than on activity design. The reasons for these phenomena may be attributed to China\u0026rsquo;s traditional exam-oriented English teaching approach. The close connection between teaching and exam content, coupled with the significant pressure on both students and teachers to perform in assessments, has led some educators to adopt a \u0026ldquo;cramming\u0026rdquo; teaching style. Compared to time-consuming classroom activities, teachers tend to focus more on content knowledge directly related to exam content (Yan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Tan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, Chinese teachers demonstrated a particularly high frequency of \u003cem\u003eReflection on teaching and learning\u003c/em\u003e, which ranked as the second most prevalent among the four cognitive processes. Examining teachers\u0026rsquo; specific reflective content reveals that AI-generated materials frequently prompted additional reflection. This pattern occurred repeatedly, especially when ChatGPT-4 (lacking awareness of real student contexts) generated lesson plans incompatible with teachers\u0026rsquo; specific student groups. The survey by Hossain and Al Younus (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that foreign language teachers recognized ChatGPT\u0026rsquo;s outputs lacked localization awareness when using it to assist in writing instruction, requiring teachers to provide targeted guidance based on students\u0026rsquo; actual learning needs. Similar situations frequently occurred in this study, as exemplified by T5\u0026rsquo;s comment: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThe AI\u0026rsquo;s output was excessively detailed, I\u0026rsquo;m concerned my students wouldn\u0026rsquo;t know which parts to prioritize or how to apply them\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNotably, \u003cem\u003eOrganizing of classroom space\u003c/em\u003e was notably absent in teachers\u0026rsquo; planning, contrasting with Contreras et al.\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) findings. Recent scholarly work has empirically validated the positive correlation between well-designed classroom spatial configurations and enhanced instructional effectiveness (Ellis \u0026amp; Goodyear, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Scholars increasingly suggest teachers should enhance instructional effectiveness by considering spatial flexibility (Chaker \u0026amp; Njingang Mbadjoin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). However, these recommendations were not implemented, possibly due to large class sizes and space constraints in Chinese classrooms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2 Perceptions towards AI-assisted lesson planning for L2 writing among K-12 teachers\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the second research question, teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of using GenAI to assist in lesson planning were mixed, with overall negative evaluations outweighing positive ones. The most frequently mentioned advantages were \u003cem\u003eRich in content\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eContinuous thinking\u003c/em\u003e, while the most cited drawback was \u003cem\u003eLack of innovation\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChinese teachers held more negative than positive perceptions of GenAI, which contrasts with previous research on AI perceptions. Most prior studies concluded that AI predominantly benefits lesson planning, for instance, by saving teachers time, generating novel ideas, and enhancing creativity in instructional design (ElSayary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hossain \u0026amp; Al Younus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This discrepancy may stem from teachers\u0026rsquo; unfamiliarity with using GenAI for lesson planning. Although all participants engaged in a warm-up activity with ChatGPT-4 before the task, retrospective interviews revealed that these 10 teachers were using a GenAI tool like ChatGPT-4 to assist lesson planning for the first time. According to Bower et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), teachers\u0026rsquo; awareness of AI\u0026rsquo;s capabilities positively correlates with their perceived impact on teaching, a phenomenon termed \u003cem\u003eignorance effect\u003c/em\u003e. This aligns with Agarwal et al.\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) early finding in software adoption that users\u0026rsquo; perceptions are directly linked to training experience. Currently, frontline EFL teachers in China\u0026rsquo;s K-12 education system have received no formal GenAI training.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe advantage of ChatGPT-4 in generating rich content, as identified by teachers in the present study, has also been validated by ElSayary (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and Mohamed (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), who report that educators acknowledge its capacity to produce abundant content, thereby reducing workload while providing substantial knowledge resources for language teaching. Additionally, the advantage of AI possessing \u003cem\u003eContinuous thinking\u003c/em\u003e, as noted by Chinese teachers, is one of the key features of ChatGPT, its strong logical reasoning ability in continuous context is a defining characteristic of ChatGPT-4 (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This is also one of the reasons why it was selected in this study to assist teachers in lesson planning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLack of innovation\u003c/em\u003e mentioned repeatedly by several teachers in this study is a noteworthy finding, as it differed significantly from previous research on teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions. According to previous scholars\u0026rsquo; research, the most frequently mentioned advantage of ChatGPT by teachers was its creativity. Teachers reported that ChatGPT generates highly creative classroom activities, significantly enriching their teaching methods. Particularly in writing instruction, teachers believed ChatGPT helps generate creative ideas and organize thoughts(Urazbayeva et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hossain \u0026amp; Al Younus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Upon closer examination of the teachers\u0026rsquo; critiques regarding ChatGPT\u0026rsquo;s lack of creativity in this study, some comments focused on the outdated activities suggested in lesson plans. For example, T4 mentioned: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThe activities it provided me were relatively outdated, or perhaps not very suitable\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; Others felt that some of the teaching theories generated by ChatGPT-4 were conventional. This discrepancy may be related to the participant demographics. All teachers in this study were from economically developed regions in China, and half held postgraduate degrees, which means they already possessed a strong theoretical foundation in teaching. Since ChatGPT-4 did not substantially expand their existing knowledge base, they may have perceived its outputs as lacking innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to explore the cognition and perceptions of EFL teachers in China\u0026rsquo;s K-12 education context when designing writing lesson plans with the assistance of Generative AI (GenAI). The findings showed that the most frequent cognitive process teachers engage in when using GenAI for lesson planning is planning teaching components, with the greatest focus placed on teaching content. Another prominent cognitive activity involves reflection on teaching and learning, where GenAI-generated lesson content appears to intensify teachers\u0026rsquo; reflective practices. Regarding perceptions of GenAI, teachers expressed mixed attitudes, with overall more negative than positive assessments. These findings provide several important pedagogical implications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture K-12 EFL teachers should strive for a balanced approach between instructional content and teaching activities while enhancing their awareness of classroom spatial planning during lesson design. When planning lessons with GenAI assistance, educators can improve the rationality of each instructional component by incorporating more balanced and well-structured template prompts. In this study, teachers held more negative than positive perceptions toward GenAI, with all participants being first-time users of GenAI for instructional support. As only with sufficient knowledge and competencies in AI interaction can educators objectively assess its contributions to teaching and learning, hence teacher professional development programs should integrate AI awareness and skills training(Celik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Arslan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). K-12 teachers should receive systematic training in AI applications to enhance their prompt design capabilities, develop critical discernment in evaluating AI-generated content, and foster collaborative human-AI innovation models.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the significance, limitations also exist in this study. With only 10 in-service teachers included, the small sample size restricts the generalizability of the findings. Future research should expand the sample size. Additionally, Chinese teachers\u0026rsquo; predominantly negative perceptions warrant deeper exploration beyond technical proficiency. As perceptions are shaped by sociocultural and environmental factors (Norenzayan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), future studies should expand cross-cultural comparisons to examine how Eastern-Western educational philosophies influence AI utilization patterns.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research strictly adhered to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and obtained ethical approval from the Academic Ethics Committee at Shanghai Normal University. After understanding the aims of the study, the participants provided their online informed consent for participation in the research.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to the inclusion of sensitive participant information. Reasonable requests for data access may be directed to the corresponding author.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that no funding was received.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eE.Z. was primarily responsible for the study design, data collection, and drafting the main manuscript, while Y.Y. was mainly responsible for the study design, data verification and analysis, as well as revising the manuscript for content. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe sincerely appreciate all the participants who took part in the present study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAchiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., ... \u0026amp; McGrew, B. (2023). Gpt-4 technical report. \u003cem\u003earXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgarwal, R., Prasad, J., \u0026amp; Zanino, M. C. (1996). Training experiences and usage intentions: a field study of a graphical user interface. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 215-241.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAguilar-Cruz, P. J., \u0026amp; Salas-Pilco, S. Z. (2025). Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of artificial intelligence in Colombia: AI technological access, AI teacher professional development and AI ethical awareness. \u003cem\u003eTechnology, Pedagogy and Education\u003c/em\u003e, 1-20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArslan, S. (2025). English-as-a-Foreign Language University Instructors\u0026apos; Perceptions of Integrating Artificial Intelligence: A Turkish Perspective. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, 103680.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBower, M., Torrington, J., Lai, J. W., Petocz, P., \u0026amp; Alfano, M. (2024). How should we change teaching and assessment in response to increasingly powerful generative Artificial Intelligence? Outcomes of the ChatGPT teacher survey. \u003cem\u003eEducation and Information Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(12), 15403-15439.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative research in psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77-101.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuba\u0026scaron;, G., Čižme\u0026scaron;ija, A., \u0026amp; Kovačić, A. (2023). Development of an assessment scale for measurement of usability and user experience characteristics of Bing chat conversational AI. Future Internet, 16(1), 4. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCelik, I. (2023). Towards Intelligent-TPACK: An empirical study on teachers\u0026rsquo; professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools into education. \u003cem\u003eComputers in human behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e138\u003c/em\u003e, 107468.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChaker, R., \u0026amp; Njingang Mbadjoin, T. (2025). Integrating school robots in K12 education: the effects on spatial configuration and social interactions. \u003cem\u003eTechnology, Pedagogy and Education\u003c/em\u003e, 1-20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, H. G., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., \u0026amp; Chen, J. V. (2009). Reducing software requirement perception gaps through coordination mechanisms. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Systems and Software\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e(4), 650-655.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, H., Chen, J., \u0026amp; Chiang, F. K. (2024). A study on the influence of learning space on students\u0026apos; intrinsic learning motivation. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(3), e12652.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClark, C. M. (1984). \u003cem\u003eTeachers\u0026apos; thought processes\u003c/em\u003e (No. 72). Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 53.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teacher thinking. \u003cem\u003eEducational researcher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 5-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClark, C. M., \u0026amp; Yinger, R. J. (1977). Research on teacher thinking. \u003cem\u003eCurriculum inquiry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(4), 279-304.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eC Meniado, J. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on English language teaching, learning, and assessment: A rapid review of literature. \u003cem\u003eArab World English Journals (AWEJ) Volume\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eContreras, K., Arredondo, C., D\u0026iacute;az, C., Inostroza, M. J., \u0026amp; Strickland, B. (2020). Examining differences between pre-and in-service teachers\u0026rsquo; cognition when lesson planning. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e, 102240.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCotton, D., \u0026amp; Gresty, K. (2006). Reflecting on the think‐aloud method for evaluating e‐learning. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Educational Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45-54.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDornburg, A., \u0026amp; Davin, K. J. (2024). ChatGPT in foreign language lesson plan creation: Trends, variability, and historical biases. \u003cem\u003eReCALL\u003c/em\u003e, 1-16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllis, R. A., \u0026amp; Goodyear, P. (2016). Models of learning space: Integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. \u003cem\u003eReview of Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 149-191.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElSayary, A. (2024). An investigation of teachers\u0026apos; perceptions of using ChatGPT as a supporting tool for teaching and learning in the digital era. \u003cem\u003eJournal of computer assisted learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(3), 931-945.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEricsson, K. A. (2017). Protocol analysis. \u003cem\u003eA companion to cognitive science\u003c/em\u003e, 425-432.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeng, F., Yu, S., Liu, C., \u0026amp; Liu, Z. (2022). Teaching and learning writing in English as a foreign language (EFL) school education contexts: A thematic review. \u003cem\u003eScandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66\u003c/em\u003e(3), 491-504.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuo, K., Zhong, Y., Qin, J., \u0026amp; Chu, S. K. W. (2025). Investigating EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; lesson planning for chatbot-assisted learning of argumentative writing: a TPACK perspective. \u003cem\u003eInteractive Learning Environments\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1520-1541.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHall, T. J., \u0026amp; Smith, M. A. (2006). Teacher planning, instruction and refl ection: what we know about teacher cognitive processes. Quest, 58(4), 424-442.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHashem, R., Ali, N., El Zein, F., Fidalgo, P., \u0026amp; Khurma, O. A. (2024). AI to the rescue: Exploring the potential of ChatGPT as a teacher ally for workload relief and burnout prevention. Research \u0026amp; Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHew, K. F., Huang, W., Du, J., \u0026amp; Jia, C. (2023). Using chatbots to support student goal setting and social presence in fully online activities: Learner engagement and perceptions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Computing in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 40-68.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHossain, M. K., \u0026amp; Al Younus, M. A. (2025). Teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives on integrating ChatGPT into EFL writing instruction. TESOL Communications, 4(1), 41-60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu, B., Zheng, L., Zhu, J., Ding, L., Wang, Y., \u0026amp; Gu, X. (2024). Teaching plan generation and evaluation with GPT-4: Unleashing the potential of LLM in instructional design. \u003cem\u003eIEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKohnke, L. (2023). L2 learners\u0026apos; perceptions of a chatbot as a potential independent language learning tool. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1-2), 214-226.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, I. (2022). Developments in classroom-based research on L2 writing. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Second Language Learning and Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(4), 551-574.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, Y. T., McCauley, C. R., \u0026amp; Draguns, J. G. (2013). \u003cem\u003ePersonality and person perception across cultures\u003c/em\u003e. Psychology Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, H., Ning, R., Teng, Z., Liu, J., Zhou, Q., \u0026amp; Zhang, Y. (2023). Evaluating the logical reasoning ability of chatgpt and gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03439.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, X. H. (2020). A Survey on the Use of Evidence-based Teaching Practices for Writing by High School EFL Teachers. \u003cem\u003eForeign Language Learning Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, (04),58-64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLo, C. K., Yu, P. L. H., Xu, S., Ng, D. T. K., \u0026amp; Jong, M. S. Y. (2024). Exploring the application of ChatGPT in ESL/EFL education and related research issues: a systematic review of empirical studies. \u003cem\u003eSmart Learning Environments\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. \u003cem\u003eEducation sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 13(4), 410.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMEI, D. (2022). Understanding the Nature and Rationale of China\u0026rsquo;s English Curriculum-An Explicit Interpretation of English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (2022 Edition). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, 9(3), 104-111.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohamed, A. M. (2024). Exploring the potential of an AI-based Chatbot (ChatGPT) in enhancing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching: perceptions of EFL Faculty Members. \u003cem\u003eEducation and Information Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(3), 3195-3217.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, C. T. K. (2019). Overview of second and foreign language writing: Characteristics, perspectives and pedagogical approaches. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Asia TEFL\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1059.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorenzayan, A., Choi, I., \u0026amp; Peng, K. (2007). Perception and cognition. \u003cem\u003eHandbook of cultural psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 569-594.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkulu, H. Z., \u0026amp; Muslu, N. (2024). Designing a course for pre-service science teachers using ChatGPT: What ChatGPT brings to the table. \u003cem\u003eInteractive Learning Environments\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(10), 7450-7467.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParasuraman, B. (2024). Introduction to Generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs). In \u003cem\u003eMastering Spring AI: The Java Developer\u0026rsquo;s Guide for Large Language Models and Generative AI\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1-34). Berkeley, CA: Apress.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeikos, G., \u0026amp; Stavrou, D. (2025). ChatGPT for Science Lesson Planning: An Exploratory Study Based on Pedagogical Content Knowledge. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 15(3), 338.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeterson, P. L., Marx, R. W., \u0026amp; Clark, C. M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. \u003cem\u003eAmerican educational research journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 417-432.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalih, S., Husain, O., Hamdan, M., Abdelsalam, S., Elshafie, H., \u0026amp; Motwakel, A. (2024). Transforming Education with AI: A Systematic Review of ChatGPT\u0026apos;s Role in Learning, Academic Practices, and Institutional Adoption. \u003cem\u003eResults in Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, 103837.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSanderson, K. (2023). GPT-4 is here: what scientists think. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e615\u003c/em\u003e(7954), 773.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShi, L., Ding, A. C., \u0026amp; Choi, I. (2024). Investigating teachers\u0026rsquo; use of an AI-Enabled system and their perceptions of AI integration in science classrooms: a case study. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1187.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eŞimşek, N. (2025). Integration of ChatGPT in mathematical story-focused 5E lesson planning: Teachers and pre-service teachers\u0026apos; interactions with ChatGPT. \u003cem\u003eEducation and Information Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, 1-72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStemler, S. (2000). An overview of content analysis. \u003cem\u003ePractical assessment, research, and evaluation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaani, O., \u0026amp; Alabidi, S. (2024). ChatGPT in education: Benefits and challenges of ChatGPT for mathematics and science teaching practices. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, 1-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTan, C. (2020). Beyond high-stakes exam: A neo-Confucian educational programme and its contemporary implications. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(2), 137-148.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTseng, Y. C., \u0026amp; Lin, Y. H. (2024). Enhancing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Learners\u0026apos; Writing with ChatGPT: A University-Level Course Design. \u003cem\u003eElectronic Journal of e-Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(2), 78-97.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTyler, R. W. (1950). Basic princeplesof curriculum and instruction. \u003cem\u003eUniversity od Chicago, Chicago\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUrazbayeva, G., Kussainova, R., Aibergen, A., Kaliyeva, A., \u0026amp; Kantayeva, G. (2024). Innovation Off the Bat: Bridging the ChatGPT Gap in Digital Competence among English as a Foreign Language Teachers. Education Sciences, 14(9), 946.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUysal, B. \u0026Ccedil;. B., \u0026amp; Y\u0026uuml;ksel, İ. (2024). AI-powered lesson planning: Insights from future EFL teachers. In \u003cem\u003eAI in Language Teaching, Learning, and Assessment\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 101-132). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWing-mui So, W. (1997). A study of teacher cognition in planning elementary science lessons. \u003cem\u003eResearch in Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 71-86.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYan, J., \u0026amp; Goh, H. H. (2023). Exploring the cognitive processes in teacher candidates\u0026apos; collaborative task-based lesson planning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 136, 104365.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYan, C. (2015). We can\u0026rsquo;t change much unless the exams change\u0026rsquo;: Teachers\u0026rsquo; dilemmas in the curriculum reform in China. Improving Schools, 18(1), 5-19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning. \u003cem\u003eThe elementary school journal\u003c/em\u003e, 80(3), 107-127.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZahorik, J. (1975). Teachers\u0026apos; planning models. Educational leadership, 33, 134-139.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZaiarna, I., Zhyhadlo, O., \u0026amp; Dunaievska, O. (2024). ChatGPT in foreign language teaching and assessment: exploring EFL instructors\u0026rsquo; experience. \u003cem\u003eInformation Technologies and Learning Tools\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(102), 176-191.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, L. J., \u0026amp; Zhang, D. (2019). Think-aloud protocols. In The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 302-311). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"GenAI, writing lesson planning, ELF teachers, cognitive process, perceptions of AI","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932636/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932636/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding teachers\u0026rsquo; lesson preparation processes serves as an essential approach to grasping pedagogical practices, especially in such a digital age. Under these circumstances, it appears very necessary to explore how exactly EFL teachers prepare and perceive their potential L2 writing lessons using the GenAI tool. To address this major concern, this study employed the think-aloud approach and retrospective interview to explore the 10 Chinese K-12 EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; cognitive processes of lesson planning for L2 writing with the assistance of GhatGPT-4. Research findings indicate that Chinese English teachers prioritize the planning of learning content most frequently during their lesson preparation process, followed by reflection on student-related considerations. The planning of learning activities ranks third in terms of cognitive frequency. Regarding the perceptions, teachers demonstrated more negative than positive perceptions towards AI, with only 37.8% of evaluations acknowledging its advantages. The most prominent perceived strength of Gen AI lies in its rich theoretical knowledge base as recognized by teachers. However, 62.2% of negative evaluations criticize its limitations, particularly teachers\u0026rsquo; perception that Gen AI generates content that is generic, rigid, and lacking in creativity.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Chinese K-12 EFL teachers’ use of AI for writing lesson planning: Cognition and Perceptions in Practice","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-25 13:56:58","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932636/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"42f1a308-eb67-47c4-8f3d-45e094567225","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 25th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-12T03:23:19+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-25 13:56:58","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6932636","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6932636","identity":"rs-6932636","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}