This study explored the comparative quality of social studies lesson plans generated by artificial intelligence (AI) and preservice teachers (PSTs), assessed by experienced social studies teacher educators. Using a concurrent mixed-methods approach, evaluators blind-reviewed six lesson plans—three AI-generated and three PST-generated—using a research-based rubric addressing coherence, clarity, learning objectives, activities, assessment alignment, and integration of inquiry and critical thinking. Quantitative findings indicated AI-generated lessons consistently outperformed PST-generated lessons in clarity, structured alignment, and inquiry integration. Qualitative analyses revealed a central paradox: AI was better at the technical elements of lesson planning, excelling in procedural efficiency and clarity, making them practically beneficial for immediate classroom use; however, human teachers brought more depth and creativity when those elements were present, demonstrating greater historical nuance and critical engagement. These findings suggest AI’s promising potential as a foundational resource to alleviate teacher workloads and reduce burnout, while underscoring the irreplaceable role of human creativity and pedagogical judgment.
AndersonL. W.KrathwohlD. R. (Eds.). (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson.
BallL. D.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
4.
BloomB. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, book 1: Cognitive domain. Longmans, Green and Co.
5.
ClarkC. H.van KesselC. (2024). “I, for one, welcome our new computer overlords”: Using artificial intelligence as a lesson planning resource for social studies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 24(2), 151–183.
6.
CohenD. K.BallD. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
7.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
8.
Darling‑HammondL.HylerM. E.GardnerM. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
9.
DanielsonC. (2013). The framework for teaching: Evaluation instrument. The Danielson Group.
10.
DanielsonC. (2024). Enhancing professional practice: The framework for teaching (3rd ed.). The Danielson Group.
11.
DayC.GuQ. (2013). Resilient teachers, resilient schools: Building and sustaining quality in testing times. Routledge.
12.
de KlerkM.McLeanN. (2025). Navigating the challenges of artificial intelligence integration in global south higher education: A technocritical approach. Research Bulletin on Post-School Education and Training, 13, 27–28.
13.
GrantJ.SwanK.LeeS. G. (2017). Inquiry-based practice in social studies education: Understanding the inquiry design model. Routledge.
14.
HamiltonE. R.RosenbergJ. M.AkcaogluM. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60, 433–441.
15.
HolmesW.BialikM.FadelC. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
16.
HunterM. (1982). Mastery teaching: Increasing instructional effectiveness in elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and universities. TIP Publications.
17.
KakaS. J.Littenberg-TobiasJ.KessnerT.FrancisA. T.KennettK. (2024). “I have never wanted to quit more as a teacher”: How “divisive issues” legislation impacts teachers. Educational Research: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 133–156.
18.
KasneciE.SeßlerK.KüchemannS.BannertM.DementievaD.FischerF.GasserU.GrohG.GünnemannS.HüllermeierE.KruscheS.KutyniokG.MichaeliT.NerdelC.PfefferJ.PoquetO.SailerM.SchmidtA.SeidelT.... KasneciG. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and individual differences, 103, 102274.
19.
KoehlerM.MishraP. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
20.
KrutkaD. G.CarpenterJ. P. (2017). Digital citizenship in the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 75(3), 50–55.
21.
KrutkaD. G.HeathM. K.MasonL. E. (2020). Technology won’t save us – A call for technoskepticism in social studies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 108–120.
22.
KrutkaD., G.HeathM. K.PleasantJ. (2024). Technoskepticism in social studies education. In VargaB.AdamsA. (Eds.), The theory-story reader for social studies (pp. 202–208). Teachers College Press.
23.
KuhailM. A.AlturkiN.AlramlawiS.AlhejoriK. (2023). Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 973–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3
24.
MarzanoR. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. ASCD.
25.
MarzanoR. J. (2010). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives. Solution Tree Press.
26.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
27.
MishraP.KoehlerM. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
28.
Monte-SanoC.BudanoC. (2013). Developing and enacting pedagogical content knowledge for teaching history: An exploration of two novice teachers’ growth over three years. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 171–211.
29.
MoundridouM.MatzakosN.DoukakisS. (2024). Generative AI tools as educators’ assistants: Designing and implementing inquiry-based lesson plans. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, Article 100277.
30.
PleasantsJ.KrutkaD. G.NicholsT. P. (2023). What relationships do we want with technology? Toward technoskepticism in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 93(4), 486–515
31.
PophamW. J. (2018). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (8th ed.). Pearson.
32.
RosenbergJ. M.KoehlerM. J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210.
33.
SaldañaJ. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.
34.
SelwynN. (2019). Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the future of education. Polity Press.
35.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
36.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
37.
SkaalvikE. M.SkaalvikS. (2018). Job demands and job resources as predictors of teacher motivation and well-being. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 21(5), 1251–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9464-8
38.
SteinerE. D.DoanS.WooA.GittensA. D.LawrenceR. A.BerdieL.WolfeR. L.GreerL.SchwartzH. L. (2022). Restoring teacher and principal well‑being is an essential step for rebuilding schools: Findings from the state of the American teacher and state of the American principal surveys (Report No. RR‑A1108‑4). RAND Corporation.
39.
StrongeJ. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD.
40.
TaieS.LewisL. (2022). Characteristics of 2020-21 public and private K-12 School teachers in the United States: Results from the national teacher and principal survey. First Look. NCES 2022-113. National Center for Education Statistics.
YetişensoyO.KaradumanH. (2024). The effect of AI-powered chatbots in social studies education. Education and Information Technologies, 29(13), 17035–17069.
