Evaluating English Teachers’ Artificial Intelligence Readiness and Training Needs with a TPACK-Based Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid development and widespread adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, the implementation of instructional pedagogy has transformed significantly. English teachers need to understand how AI tools can improve their teaching and must acquire the necessary technical and pedagogical knowledge to effectively utilize AI technology. Although the integration of AI into language teaching shows potential benefits, there remains a dearth of comprehensive research on English teachers’ perceptions, readiness, and professional development requirements in relation to AI.To address these knowledge research gaps, our study aims to evaluate English teachers’ current understanding of AI tools and their training needs for integrating AI into the English language classroom. Our proposed model uses the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework, which incorporates English language teaching and information literacy contexts. This framework allows for a holistic assessment of teachers’ readiness for integrating AI within English language teaching practices.A study was conducted with a class of preservice English teachers in Hong Kong. An online survey was designed to assess the readiness of English teachers for applying AI tools in the classroom as well as their understanding and level of information literacy. This study helped identify and address potential issues with the survey before launching it to a wider audience. Our findings confirmed the validity and reliability of the instrument and indicated that preservice English teacher participants are generally prepared to integrate AI tools into the English classroom. Corelation analysis was also conducted to assess the relationships among the constructs and showed that technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and instructional literacy (IL) were significant predictors of the overall TPACK construct. The study suggested professional training in the selection, implementation and progress monitoring of specific AI tools for English Language teaching; pedagogy design; and the ability to search for appropriate resources for the English classroom. The framework can be enhanced by using a mixed-method approach and incorporating a qualitative study to triangulate the findings. An explanatory sequential design will be recommended to collect quantitative data first, then qualitative data will be collected for further analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".