THE IMPACT OF AI TOOLS ON EFL LEARNERS SPEAKING FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT IN EMI CONTEXTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54613/ku.v17i.1531Keywords:
AI tools, speaking fluency, EMI students, oral expertise, applied linguisticsAbstract
Speaking fluency is vital for students participating in EMI courses, as it enables them to effectively communicate in discussions, give presentations, and engage in seminars and tutorials․ However, EFL students typically lack opportunities for sustained speaking practice, face heightened anxiety levels, and receive inadequate individual feedback․ AI tools such as conversational chatbots, speech recognition, and AI-based feedback tools can be used to address these challenges․ This quasi-experimental study explored the impact of speaking practice with AI tools on EMI students' oral fluency development after a 4-week intervention․ Participants (60 undergraduate EMI students with a B1-B2 level of expertise) were assigned to a control group and an experimental group․ The experimental group experienced an intervention where students had to perform role-plays with ChatGPT, use speech-to-text applications, and incorporate AI-generated feedback, whereas the control group engaged in customary speaking activities․ Fluency measures (speech rate in words per minute, pauses per minute, and mean length of utterance) were collected pre- and post-intervention․ In the experimental group, fluency statistics showed a considerably increased speech rate, decreased pause rate, and improved confidence as compared to participants in the control group․ The results indicate that AI-supported practice is an effective way to provide low-anxiety, individualized speaking practice that can help students make progress towards their speaking goals outside the classroom․ The pedagogical implications of using AI tools in blended learning EMI settings suggest that mediation by instructors is important for students' effective use of AI-assisted learning in developing their speaking skills․
Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar:
1. Bibauw, S., François, T., & Desmet, P. (2019). Discussing with a computer to practice a foreign language: Research synthesis and conceptual framework of dialogue-based CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(8), 827-877. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1535508
2. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23-48). Routledge.
3. Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 741-753. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English Medium Instruction in the internationalised university. Palgrave Macmillan.
6. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97-113). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., Thompson, A., Gibson, A., & Sherlock, Z. (2020). Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of chatbot and human task partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 461-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.045
8. Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Chasing the butterfly effect: Informal language learning online as a complex system. Language Learning & Technology, 22(2), 8-27. https://doi.org/10125/44643
9. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132. https://doi.org/10.2307/327317
10. Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(2), 145-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001
11. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
12. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
13. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36-76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350
14. Nation, I. S. P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17(3), 377-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(89)90010-9
15. Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. Routledge.
16. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
17. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
18. Tavakoli, P., Campbell, C., & McCormack, J. (2016). Development of speech fluency over a short period of time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 447-471. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.244
19. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v13i2-3.7-26
20. Zhai, X., & Wibowo, S. (2023). A systematic review of artificial intelligence chatbots for promoting language learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 18(4), 4-24. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i04.35877
Downloads
Published
Iqtiboslik olish
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 QO‘QON UNIVERSITETI XABARNOMASI
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.