MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415557071 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v19i4.9451

Technological Ignatian Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Language Teachers: An Enhanced Framework for Ignatian Schools

2025· article· en· W4415557071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Regiene Chiu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHigher Education and Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDe La Salle University
KeywordsMentorshipFace (sociological concept)Focus groupHigher educationTeacher educationFaculty developmentTeaching methodFocus (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study explores how the Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) framework can align with the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm (IPP) in Ignatian schools. Using a researcher-made interview guide and the TIPACK (Technological, Ignatian Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge) survey instrument, data were collected from 15 Senior High School (SHS) language teachers and six focus group participants. Results revealed that teachers excel in 21st-century higher-order thinking skills and TIPACK but face challenges in integrating IPP, requiring mentorship and training on technology use. Recommendations include addressing these challenges, enhancing TIPACK competencies, integrating IPP in online education standards, and conducting further studies on the enhanced TIPACK framework in other Jesuit SHSs. These findings aim to advance effective pedagogy, addressing the technological and pedagogical needs of SHS teachers within an Ignatian context.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.346 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicHigher Education and Teaching MethodsFrench-language works237,207