MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407772605 · doi:10.5539/hes.v15n2p37

Developing a TPACK-based Course to Promote the Pre-service Preschool Teachers’ Instructional Design Competence

2025· article· en· W4407772605 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiraporn Chano, Prasong Saihong

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Research and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPutian University
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Mathematics educationInstructional designPsychologyFaculty developmentTeaching methodPedagogyMedical educationProfessional developmentMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study integrates the TPACK framework into a Preschool Language Education course to examine its effects on pre-service preschool teachers' instructional design competence (IDC). The research aims to explore effective methods for IDC development and analyze its growth characteristics. Using an R&D methodology, this study employed an experimental design with an experimental group and a control group. Data were collected from 41 pre-service preschool teachers at Putian University, Fujian Province, China, through cluster sampling. The experimental group (n=21) participated in a 13-week TPACK-based course, while the control group (n=20) received traditional instruction. The IDC Scale and Lesson Plan Scoring Rubric were used for data collection. Data analysis included independent and paired t-tests, as well as assessments of lesson plan scores and grade distributions. Key findings indicate that (1) the TPACK-based course encompasses course objectives, content, learning organization, and assessment, with all participants achieving satisfactory or higher lesson plan scores and a 95% satisfaction rate; (2) the course significantly enhances pre-service preschool teachers' IDC; and (3) at the early stage of professional development, IDC growth exhibits characteristics of simplification, linearity, and dogmatism.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEducational Research and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207