Impact of Artificial Intelligence Versus Traditional Instruction for Language Learning: A Survey
Open accessAbstract
This study examined the impact of AI-based training compared to conventional instruction approaches in the context of language acquisition.Employing a survey-based methodology, this study collected data from language learners to assess their perspectives and experiences of both traditional and AI-based training.The aim was to determine the advantages and disadvantages of AI-based training and its potential to enhance language learning outcomes.This study commences with a comprehensive analysis of existing research on AI in language learning and compares AI-based training with conventional instruction techniques.This study seeks to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by identifying the gaps in the literature.A representative sample of 72 learners will be administered the survey questionnaire as part of the research approach.The study collected demographic data from respondents and information on their experiences with and opinions on both traditional and AI-based training.Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the responses and draw insightful conclusions.The findings of this study shed light on the impact of AI-based training on language-learning outcomes.The analysis compared the effectiveness of AI-based instruction with conventional teaching methods, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.The study also addresses the constraints and challenges encountered during the research process, which could affect the generalizability of the results.The study’s findings have implications for language teachers, educational institutions, and policymakers while also advancing our understanding of AI’s role of AI in language learning.The results may guide decisions regarding instructional strategies, curriculum design, and the use of AI technology in language learning programs.The study concludes with recommendations for further investigation of the potential of AI-based language learning training and solutions to the issues identified.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI primarily focuses on surface-level improvements in writing.
“While AI primarily focuses on surface-level improvements, traditional instruction enables students to internalize writing principles and develop a deeper understanding of the reasoning behind grammatical and structural rules [9,32].”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
AI tools can provide automated, standardized feedback based on linguistic patterns and pre-set algorithms.
“AI tools can provide automated, standardized feedback based on linguistic patterns and pre-set algorithms.”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
Traditional instruction significantly contributes to skill retention.
“While AI tools may be more efficient, traditional instruction significantly contributes to skill retention [32].”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
Traditional instruction provides comprehensive and tailored feedback that addresses individual learning needs.
“Traditional instruction, however, provides comprehensive and tailored feedback that addresses individual learning needs [32].”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
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
Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review
Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2988510 · Cited by 4,133 · see citing works
Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Hwang, G.-J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001 · Cited by 1,435 · see citing works
Evolution and Revolution in Artificial Intelligence in Education
Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3 · Cited by 1,229 · see citing works
Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education
Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G.-J. (2020) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002 · Cited by 1,003 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Education: The Three Paradigms
Ouyang, F., & Jiao, P. (2021) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100020 · Cited by 991 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence and education in China
Knox, J. (2020) · Learning, Media and Technology · doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1754236 · Cited by 489 · see citing works
Evolution of artificial intelligence
Spector, L. C. (2006) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2006.10.009 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Visualizing Artificial Intelligence Used in Education Over Two Decades
Yu, Z. (2020) · Journal of Information Technology Research · doi:10.4018/jitr.2020100103 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Kühne, O., & Edler, D. (2022) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc12050122 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Education
Nagao, K. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-6175-3_1 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Four paradigms in learning analytics: Why paradigm convergence matters
Baker, R. S., Gašević, D., & Karumbaiah, S. (2021) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100021 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence: What Does It Mean for Nursing?
Frith, K. H. (2019) · Nursing Education Perspectives · doi:10.1097/01.nep.0000000000000543 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence :, A Prospective Or Real Option For Education
Sourani, M. (2018) · الجنان · doi:10.33986/0522-000-011-018 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Application and Practice of Artificial Intelligence in Maker Education and Teaching
Ma, Z. (2019) · Advances in Higher Education · doi:10.18686/ahe.v3i2.1423 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Third international conference on artificial intelligence and education
(1987) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(87)90086-5 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Editorial – Artificial Intelligence in Logic Design
Yanushkevich, S. N. (2003) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1023/b:aire.0000006651.15344.b9 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Roles of robotics in education using artificial intelligence
(2018) · International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering and Research · doi:10.23883/ijrter.2018.4224.eam7n · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Ali, A., Al-Tamimi, S., & Abdallah, A. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on English language learners' and teachers' motivation. International Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 191-210.
- eam7n · DOI
- Yan, Y. (2023). The role of AI-assisted language learning tools in developing EFL students' writing performance. Journal of Educational Technology & Development, 22(1), 1-12.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deep, P. D., & Chen, Y. (2025) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc15090247 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dhanapal, C., Asharudeen, N., & Alfaruque, S. Y.
- Affiliations
- King Khalid University (SA)
- Venue
- World Journal of English Language
- Publisher
- Sciedu Press
- Published
- 2024-01-12
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 182
- ISSN
- 1925-0703 (ISSN-L)
- 1925-0711
- OpenAlex
- W4390816389
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 7.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- World Journal of English Language (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- King Khalid University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- AI-assisted language learning, traditional teaching methods, language acquisition, learner perceptions, language learning outcomes, teaching effectiveness
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