The use of AI tools in English language pedagogy is changing classroom practices by helping to develop students’ communicative competence and confidence and to assist teachers with their teaching tasks. This research examines the efficacy of existing artificial intelligence tools and applications for supporting English language teaching and learning, with a particular focus on the impact they have on the key language domains of speaking, reading, writing, and grammar. It explores how AI tools enhance personalization, instant feedback in language learning as well as addressing challenges such as data privacy, technology dependence and algorithmic bias. The design of this research combined both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative data are collected using semi-structured interviews with students and teachers on their experiences, thoughts, and concerns about AI-assisted language teaching and learning, particularly in relation to issues of privacy, equity of access, and trust in AI-generated feedback. Quantitative data are pre- and post-intervention language skill tests that are used to measure the level of language expertise of the learners before and after the implementation of AI-assisted language learning tools. The findings suggest that AI has the potential to improve access and participation in learning and teaching, support administrative and instructional tasks, and reduce the burden on teachers, thereby enabling them to engage in higher-order pedagogical functions. The study also identified privacy and storage issues, unequal access to reliable hardware and software, and concerns that student overreliance on AI tools may obstruct language development in areas such as critical thinking, creativity, and independent problem-solving, as challenges to the successful adoption of AI. The results also revealed statistically significant improvements in grammar (42%), speaking (33%), vocabulary (31%), and writing (26%).
Alkhirbash et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: