MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135035417 · doi:10.55016/82737

Extending AI-TPACK: Reframing Teacher Readiness for the Generative-AI Era

2025· article· W7135035417 on OpenAlexaff
Sunaina Sharma, Monther M. Elaish

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingCurriculumScope (computer science)Generative grammarPosition (finance)Position paperGenerative model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The increasing presence of artificial intelligence (AI) in education presents both opportunities and challenges for K–12 teacher education. As educators prepare students for an AI-driven world, their readiness to integrate generative AI (GenAI) tools into classrooms becomes crucial. Building on the emerging AI-TPACK framework, this paper extends its theoretical scope to the generative era by introducing three novel dimensions including prompt literacy, ethical AI engagement, and teacher-AI-student partnerships, and examining their implications for teacher readiness and professional learning. Guided by three questions on readiness, competency development, and institutional response, the paper synthesizes current research on GenAI integration and proposes a Strategic Roadmap that operationalizes this extended AI-TPACK model through curriculum design, faculty development, and ethically grounded, equity-focused preparation. Together, the extended AI-TPACK model and the Strategic Roadmap position teacher readiness for GenAI as a paradigm shift in educational thought and practice.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
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 venueJournal of educational thought.Same topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207