Abstract :

Artificial intelligence tools have considerable potential to support English language teaching in terms of personalized learning, instant feedback, authentic input, and opportunities for interactive practice outside the classroom. However, the value of AI is not only in the technology but also in the way teachers design, guide, monitor, and evaluate its use in meaningful learning activities. The successful implementation of AI requires teachers to balance technological innovation with pedagogical planning, ethical awareness, institutional readiness, and learner-centered instruction.

This study aims to explore how English teachers integrate AI tools in adolescent English language classrooms and to identify the main obstacles that impede effective AI integration. The barriers considered include access, cost, digital literacy, dependence on AI, data privacy, and assessment integrity.

A descriptive quantitative research design was used in this study. Data were collected through a questionnaire with closed-ended questions and statements on a Likert scale. The questionnaire covered teacher background, the type of AI tools used, the reasons for using AI, how often it was used, perceived benefits, and challenges in implementation. The research concerns English teachers who teach adolescent learners in formal educational settings, such as general and vocational high schools. The recommendation is to select five English teachers to participate in the questionnaire and observe three to five English lessons to gain insights into the use of AI in actual classroom practices. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistical methods such as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation. The TPACK framework guides the study in investigating the relationship between technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge in AI-supported English instruction

It is expected that the study will identify patterns in teachers’ use of AI tools, such as the most common tools, reasons for use, perceived benefits, and main challenges.

---

Keywords :

Deep Learning, Integration, ELT, Adolescent Learners.

---

References :

1. Abano, R. C., & Estremera, M. L. (2026). Teaching Languages with Machines : A Systematic Review on the Effectiveness of AI in ESL Learning. 9, 431–446.
2. Abdoulai, S. (2025). Navigating the dual impact of social media on academic performance and social interactions in higher education. 8(2).
3. Afzal, A. (2026). Faculty Readiness and Ethical Perceptions of AI Integration in Higher Education Teaching and Assessment. 16(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v16i1.1742
4. Alnajashi, A., & Arabia, S. (2024). Students ’ Motivation and Engagement with Task-Based Activities Using Google Workspace. 13(6), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v13n6p218
5. Andreeva, A. (2025). Integrating AI to Address Generational Characteristics and Educational Needs. 19(3), 34–48.
6. Arifin, M. (2025). Acceptance and use of technology in online learning in higher education : A student perspective. 12(1), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v12i1.6449
7. Bannert, M., Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Stefan, K., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Stephan, G., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., & Seidel, T. (2023). ChatGPT for Good ? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education. 1–13.
8. Bhat, N. A. (2025). Beyond the Classroom Walls : Leveraging Information and Communication Technology for Lifelong Learning. 12, 104–110.
9. Cheng, A., Jantharajit, N., & Kanjanakate, S. (2026). The Impact of Analogical Learning and the Feynman Technique on English Achievement and Reasoning Ability in Grade Six : An Experimental Study. 12(1), 40–51.
10. Choi, S. (2025). Ethical Issues of Using AI in Language Education : 80, 229–248.
11. Dea, M. (2016). The Nexus between Instructional Supervision , Supervisors ’ and Teachers ’: The Practical Paradox and Its Effect on Quality Education a Case of Woliat Zone Administration Elementary and Secondary Schools ( 1-8 ). 7(7), 108–118.
12. Gobena, G. A., & Sciences, B. (2026). Assessing Linguistic Barriers to English Speaking Skills in Research-Based Courses : A Study of University Students. 11(1), 91–104.
13. Habibi, A., & Yusop, F. D. (2022). Exploring the factors affecting pre-service science t eachers ’ actual use of technology during teaching practice. 42(1), 1–11.
14. Kostka, I., & Toncelli, R. (2023). Exploring Applications of ChatGPT to English Language Teaching : Opportunities , Challenges , and Recommendations. 27(3), 1–19.
15. Manu, G. A., Setyosari, P., Ulfa, S., & Praherdhiono, H. (2022). DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A REAL-TIME EMOTION DETECTION SYSTEM.
16. Mart, M., & Burghes, D. (2025). MATHS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION : AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS ’ BELIEFS. 14(2), 10–21.
17. Orcan, F. (2023). Comparison of cronbach ’ s alpha and McDonald ’ s omega for ordinal data : Are they different ? 10(4), 709–722.
18. Pardede, P. (2025). Recent Research on Creative Writing Learning in Indonesian EFL Settings : A Systematic Literature Review. 11(2), 150–167.
19. Pendidikan, M., Teknologi, D. A. N., & Indonesia, R. (2022). Menteri pendidikan, kebudayaan, riset, dan teknologi republik indonesia.
20. Pratiwi, H., Riwanda, A., Hasruddin, H., Sujarwo, S., & Syamsudin, A. (2025). Transforming learning or creating dependency ? Teachers ’ perspectives and barriers to AI integration in education. 9(2), 127–142.
21. Quinie, O., Loo, K., & Nagaletchimee, A. (2025). Navigating ICT Integration : Empowering Teacher Educators to Cultivate TPACK 21st- century Learning Skills in Pre-Service Teachers. 17.
22. Report, F. (2019). Study on skills for the future in Indonesia. July.
23. Review, L. (2022). International Journal of Educational Methodology Number of Response Options , Reliability , Validity , and Potential Bias in the Use of the Likert Scale Education and Social Science Research : A Literature Review. 8(4), 625–637.
24. Rinnemaa, P. (2023). Adolescents’ learning of civics in linguistically diverse classrooms: A thematic literature review. 22.
25. Science, S. (2025). Science Teachers ’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge : An Explanatory Sequential Design To cite this article : Science Teachers ’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge : An Explanatory Sequential Design.
26. Set, E. F. (2025). Ef epi.
27. Som, K. J. (2025). Teachers ’ Agency and Teaching Challenges in Multilingual Spaces : An Exploratory Study of How EFL Teachers Address Listening and Speaking Skills Needs in Centralized Systems. 28(4), 1–22.
28. Studies, S., & Bilgiler, S. (2024). Role of Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing Learning Outcomes of Pre-Service Social Studies Teachers Abdulaziz Al-Shammari 1 & Sharefah Al-Enezi 2. 15(4), 163–196.
29. Walter, A., & Carolina, N. (2024). Utilizing Language-Generating Artificial Intelligence in Educational Planning : A Case Study. 8(1), 29–59.
30. Younas, M., & El-dakhs, D. A. S. (2025). Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Advancing Smart Learning in Education : A Meta- Analysis with Statistical Evidence. 17(3), 594–610. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.3.842
31. Zhang, Y., & Wang, J. (2012). The Elaboration of Cultivating Learners ’ English Communicative Competence in China. 5(12), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n12p111
32. Zhu, Q. (2024). Towards Deep Learning in Online Courses : A Case Study in Cross-pollinating Universal Design for Learning and Dialogic Teaching. 24(3), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v24i3.35331
33. Zimuto, N. C., & Mutseekwa, C. (2026).