CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Artificial Intelligence in EducationEnglish Language Learning and TeachingEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Utilizing Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Saudi EFL Tertiary Level Classrooms

Open access
AbdAlgane, Mohammed, Othman, Khalid Abdurrahman Jabir·2023·Journal of Intercultural Communication
DOI 10.36923/jicc.v23i1.124
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study focuses on the employment of AI technology in regular, day-to-day activities, such as when Google Translate or Bing Translator are encouraged alongside various programs and applications. It also evaluates and empirically demonstrates the subjects of writing with AI technologies, computer-assisted language learning (CALL), machine translation (MT), and automatic evaluation systems (AESs) in order to offer solutions for enhanced communication training in Saudi Arabia's EFL system. Word tune is an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven writing assistant that can understand the writer's ideas and suggest alternative rewrites (e.g., shorten, expand). This program assists writers of English as a foreign language to maintain a steady flow and acquire useful English expressions. This research made use of questionnaires as a method for collecting data and then ran those responses through SPSS for analysis. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology in English as a foreign language (EFL) settings has been shown to facilitate the English language learning (ELT) process and to keep both teachers and students up to date on recent technological developments. This exploratory investigation demonstrated that all digital and AI-powered devices have the potential to assist in teaching and learning. Consequently, the pedagogical component of future education can be developed using an AI framework.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.36923/jicc.v23i1.124

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Ahn, T. Y., & Lee, S.-M. (2016). The user experience of a mobile speaking application with automatic speech recognition for EFL learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 47(4), 778-786. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12354 · DOI
  2. Arnold, D. (2003). Why translation is difficult for computers. Computers and Translation: A translator's guide, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 119-42.
  3. Bai, L., and Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible awe feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology. 37(1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.122327 · DOI
  4. Davis, R. (2006). Utopia or chaos? The impact of technology on language teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 12(11), 3-4.
  5. Du, Y., & Gao, H. (2022). Determinants affecting teachers' adoption of ai-based applications in EFL context: an analysis of analytic hierarchy process. Educ. Inf. Technol. 27(7), 9357-9384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11001-y · DOI
  6. Hamouma, C., & Menezla, N. (2019). The impact of digital literacy proficiency on EFL students' academic writing performance: A case study of Algerian third-year EFL students. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 10(4), 40-55. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDLDC.2019100103 · DOI
  7. Kay, M. (1997). The proper place of men and machines in language translation. machine translation, 12(1), 3-23.
  8. Kessler, M. (2020). Technology-mediated writing: Exploring incoming graduate students L2 writing strategies with Activity Theory. Computers and Composition, 55(6), 102542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102542 · DOI
  9. Kirschenbaum, M. (2017). Track changes: A literary history of word processing. Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674969469 · DOI
  10. Koehn, P. (2004, July). Statistical significance tests for machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 388-395).
  11. Liu, S., and Kunnan, A. J. (2016). Investigating the application of automated writing evaluation to Chinese undergraduate English majors: a case study of " write to learn ."Calico J. 33(1), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.1558/CJ.v33i1.26380 · DOI
  12. McCrocklin, S. (2019). Learners' feedback regarding asr-based dictation practice for pronunciation learning. Calico J. 36(2), 119. https://doi.org/10.1558/CJ.34738 · DOI
  13. Moore, K. A., Rutherford, C., & Crawford, K. A. (2016). Supporting postsecondary English language learners' writing proficiency using technological tools. Journal of International Students, 6(4), 857-872. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i4.321 · DOI
  14. Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299-317. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.44.3.c · DOI
  15. Perry, F. (2021). The use of embedded digital tools to develop English language proficiency in higher education. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 15(1), 1-12.
  16. Qian, L., Yang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2021). Syntactic complexity revisited: sensitivity of China's AES-generated scores to syntactic measures, effects of discourse mode and topic. Read. Writ. 34(3), 681-704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10087-5 · DOI
  17. Salaberry, M. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85 (1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00096 · DOI
  18. Tight, D. G. (2017). Tool usage and effectiveness among L2 Spanish computer writers. Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada, 17, 157-182. https://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2017.i17.07 · DOI
  19. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31(2), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800012970 · DOI
  20. Zitouni, K. S. (2022). New trends in EFL online learning and teaching through the lens of artificial intelligence. Almuqadimah Hum. Soc. Stud. J. 7(1), 1065-1080.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
AbdAlgane, M., & Othman, K. A. J.
Affiliations
Qassim University (SA)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Intercultural Communication
Publisher
International Collaboration for Research and Publications
Published
2023-03-08
Pages
92-99
ISSN
1404-1634 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.36923/jicc.v23i1.124
OpenAlex
W4324324063
Cited by
72
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 5
FWCI
13.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Intercultural Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
AI-assisted language learning, EFL writing, machine translation, computer-assisted language learning, AI writing tools, English as a foreign language teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review