This study examines how student mindset influences the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, specifically ChatGPT, in lesson planning for sexual health education within a preschool teacher training course. With rising administrative demands in early childhood education, AI offers potential support in streamlining instructional design. The research focuses on how growth, fixed, and mixed mindsets shape students’ adoption, perceptions, and effectiveness of AI-assisted lesson planning among 45 undergraduate students. Participants developed lesson plans both with and without ChatGPT, followed by reflection on their experiences. Findings show that while students initially held clear preferences, many transitioned toward a hybrid approach after exploring the tool’s benefits and limitations. Growth mindset students preferred working independently but were open to AI as a supplemental aid. Fixed mindset students often began by relying on ChatGPT but shifted away after encountering its limitations. Mixed mindset students displayed the greatest adaptability, commonly blending AI input with personal insights. Students praised ChatGPT for enhancing creativity and saving time but criticized its lack of contextual sensitivity and emotional nuance. Overall, a blended method, merging AI support with human expertise, was most favored. The study underscores the importance of promoting flexible, growth-oriented mindsets and AI literacy in teacher education to foster effective, ethical integration of technology in the classroom.

1. [1] W. Holmes, M. Bialik, and C. Fadel, “Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning,” Center for Curriculum Redesign, 2019.
2. [2] R. Luckin, W. Holmes, M. Griffiths, and L. B. Forcier, “Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education,” Pearson, 2016.
3. [3] O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond, and F. Gouverneur, “Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – Where are the educators?,” Int. J. of Educational Technology in Higher Education, Vol.16, No.1, Article No.39, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
4. [4] C. S. Dweck, “Mindset: The new psychology of success,” Random House, 2006.
5. [5] D. S. Yeager and C. S. Dweck, “Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed,” Educational Psychologist, Vol.47, No.4, pp. 302-314, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805
6. [6] S. Claro, D. Paunesku, and C. S. Dweck, “Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement,” Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol.113, No.31, pp. 8664-8668, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608207113
7. [7] L. S. Blackwell, K. H. Trzesniewski, and C. S. Dweck, “Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention,” Child Development, Vol.78, No.1, pp. 246-263, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
8. [8] E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learning and Individual Differences, Vol.103, Article No.102274, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
9. [9] L. Floridi and M. Chiriatti, “GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences,” Minds and Machines, Vol.30, No.4, pp. 681-694, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
10. [10] M. Haenlein and A. Kaplan, “Artificial intelligence and robotics: Shaking up the business world and society at large,” J. of Business Research, Vol.124, pp. 405-407, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.042
11. [11] R. Baker and G. Siemens, “Educational data mining and learning analytics,” R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), “The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd Edition),” pp. 253-272, Cambridge University Press, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.016
12. [12] N. Selwyn, “Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education,” Polity Press, 2019.
13. [13] A. H. Cash, J. A. Williams III, and L. C. Hart, “University-district partnerships to improve field experiences: Associations with candidate perceptions and performance,” Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol.94, Article No.103122, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103122
14. [14] B. J. Zimmerman, “Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview,” Theory Into Practice, Vol.41, No.2, pp. 64-70, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
15. [15] A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: The exercise of control,” W. H. Freeman, 1997.
16. [16] G. Biesta, “What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism,” European J. of Education, Vol.50, No.1, pp. 75-87, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12109
17. [17] P. A. Ertmer and A. T. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, “Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect,” J. of Research on Technology in Education, Vol.42, No.3, pp. 255-284, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
18. [18] L. Darling-Hammond, L. Flook, C. Cook-Harvey, B. Barron, and D. Osher, “Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development,” Applied Developmental Science, Vol.24, No.2, pp. 97-140, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
19. [19] L. Shulman, “Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform,” Harvard Educational Review, Vol.57, No.1, pp. 1-23, 1987. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
20. [20] G.-J. Hwang and N.-S. Chen, “Exploring the potential of generative artificial intelligence in education: Applications, challenges, and future research directions,” Educational Technology & Society, Vol.26, No.2, pp. I-XVIII, 2023. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202304_26(2).0014
21. [21] G.-J. Hwang, H. Xie, B. W. Wah, and D. Gašević, “Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, Vol.1, Article No.100001, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001