Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools reach teachers through free smartphone applications, yet evidence on whether English teachers in under-resourced government schools of Pakistan are ready to use them remains thin. Drawing on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), AI-TPACK and self-efficacy, this study examined High School English teachers' perceptions, readiness and frequency of AI use, and the contextual conditions that shape them in Sindh. An exploratory cross-sectional survey was completed by 64 English teachers from 13 districts, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. The instrument measured perceptions, four readiness components (AI literacy, AI pedagogical competence, self-efficacy and ethical awareness); institutional support; and resource challenges (α = .77–.95). Data were analysed using correlations, multiple regression, group comparisons, and thematic coding of open-ended responses. Teachers reported high readiness (M = 3.88), rated lowest institutional support (M = 2.99); only 20.3% had received AI training, and 85.9% relied on personal smartphones. Perceptions, benefits, institutional support and challenges together explained 62% of the variance in overall readiness. However, AI pedagogical competence was predicted by AI literacy (β = .41) and self-efficacy (β = .36), not by favourable perceptions (ΔR² = .27, R² = .64). Frequency of AI use was linked to perceptions (r = .48– .49) but not to competence or self-efficacy. Urban teachers use AI more often than rural teachers (d = 0.53; p = .054), though readiness did not differ. Acceptance drives use, whereas literacy and confidence drive the ability to teach with AI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghumro et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: