MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415557056 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v19i4.9362

AI Integration in IT Education: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions

2025· article· en· W4415557056 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ruth Ortega-Dela Cruz, Ramiro Z. Dela Cruz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of the Philippines
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)CurriculumGovernment (linguistics)Applications of artificial intelligenceTask (project management)Key (lock)Face (sociological concept)Information technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has generated significant interest within the educational sector, particularly in information technology (IT) education. This study explored the current challenges, opportunities, and future directions of AI in IT education in the Philippines, a nation working to enhance its educational system in the face of digital transformation. Through a survey research design, data was collected from IT students, and educators. Results highlight the key challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, limited resources, gaps in AI literacy, and concerns around ethics and data privacy. Despite these challenges, opportunities such as personalized learning, streamlined administrative processes through task automation, and advancements in research through improved data collection, processing, and analysis provide hope for the integration of AI in IT curricula. Moving forward, efforts should focus on curriculum development, supportive policy frameworks, and continuous research to leverage AI's benefits in IT education. With robust government support, industry collaboration, and ethical AI practices, the Philippines can effectively use AI to transform IT education and equip students for a tech-driven future.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0270.029
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207