The article “Bridging the gap: ESL teachers’ views on AI integration and its impact on language learning” was written by Mouna Abou Assali. This quantitative study investigates English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers’ perceptions of AI use within learning environments. By understanding the challenges and opportunities of AI integration, professional development opportunities can be designed to equip ESL teachers with the required skills to leverage AI technologies in their daily practices.
Assali elucidates the impact of AI technologies on education, with a particular emphasis on ESL classrooms. He provides instances of AI tools and delves into their implications, not only on the learning experiences of students but also on the efficacy and workload of teachers. The researcher rationalizes the underlying issue by articulating that the integration of AI is potentially constrained by ESL teachers’ perceptions, preparedness, and willingness. These are critical factors that the study aims to unveil, thus fostering a deeper comprehension of the challenges and opportunities ESL teachers face concerning AI adoption in academic settings. Assali also provides a succinct background of the research problem and references several preceding studies. The study seeks to facilitate the design of professional development opportunities to enhance teachers’ competencies in integrating AI into their pedagogical practices as well as incorporate culturally sensitive AI tools to meet the needs of a diversified student body. Thus, facilitating a more inclusive learning environment.
This quantitative research study draws on data from a Likert-scale survey administered to 120 ESL teachers from different educational settings. The sample, recruited through professional ESL teaching network, social media, and email list, participated in a cross-sectional survey which measures teachers’ agreement with statements regarding challenges and opportunities related to AI integration. The instrument included multiple Likert-scale items ranging from 1 to 5 about (1) demographic information, (2) challenges and (3) opportunities of AI utilization. The data was collected by a web-based survey platform. The descriptive statistics analysis summarizes the trends while the inferential statistics analysis examines the differences in perceptions based on teachers’ demographic characteristics and experiences with AI.
The study reveals that teachers do not feel prepared to integrate AI tools into their practices. They are also concerned about the bias and unfairness within AI algorithms and the lack of equal access to AI-driven tools. Regarding the opportunities, teachers affirm that AI-driven technologies may enhance students’ motivation through personalized learning experiences. Additionally, teachers agree that AI alleviates their workload what allows them to be focused on more complex aspects of language instruction.
The author also includes limitations and suggestions for future studies such as using a more representative technique, the use of longitudinal research design as well as mixed methods to capture nuances and complexities of teachers’ perceptions of AI. Finally, the author concludes that professional development programs may target the ESL teachers’ needs and concerns about AI integration within academic environments.
This article contributes to the broader field of Second Language Research (SLR), particularly through its focus on ESL classrooms, language acquisition, and pedagogical innovation. By exploring ESL teachers’ perspectives on the potential of AI to enhance second language learning, the study aligns with key concerns in SLR. However, a critical limitation lies in its exclusive reliance on teacher responses, omitting the voices of students, the primary stakeholders in language education.
In a field that emphasizes learner agency, engagement, and identity formation, the absence of student perspectives represents a significant oversight. As students are recipients of the language learning technologies of AI, it’s significant to know how they view its success. Without understanding how students perceive and interact with AI in ESL contexts, the study offers an incomplete picture of the pedagogical implications of such technologies. Moreover, the lack of student input undermines the study’s ability to reflect the full ecosystem of AI adoption in language learning. A more comprehensive approach—such as incorporating ethnographic methods or mixed-methods research within a critical theory framework—could have yielded richer, justice-oriented insights. This would allow for a deeper critique of institutional practices and a more nuanced understanding of lived experiences.
The study’s narrow methodological scope, driven by a general survey of 120 teachers, results in findings that are limited and non-representative. The researcher sent out their survey through email lists, social media platforms, and teaching networks rather than using educational institutions as a resource to collect data. If they were to partner with educational institutions and organizations that are focused on understanding the experience of those who work with students in language using AI, the data collected may have been more impactful. He could have had the opportunity to conduct interviews with language learning educators and gotten a more well-rounded perspective on AI integration, opportunities, and challenges.
Something to acknowledge is that there are more than ESL teachers who use AI for language learning. There are in-school and after-school programs that also focus on language learning conducted by educators who do not teach ESL. It is also worth noting that language learning AI doesn’t only exist in English speaking classrooms, but across the world. There are other languages that students struggle to learn in other countries that teachers may be using AI to teach; this could have been represented in this study, but isn’t. By limiting the study to only English speaking classrooms by ESL teachers, an entire element of exclusivity is found that hinders the results and harms the impact that the article could have. If the purpose is to integrate AI in classrooms, there is no reason to confine the study to just ESL teachers in English speaking classrooms but it would be more advantageous to extend the range of the study.
The focus of discovering “perceived” limitations and opportunities that ESL teachers find within language learning AI presents a restriction in the impact of Assali’s work. The restriction is present because the findings illustrated in the work are incomplete in the sense that they only convey beliefs, thoughts, and perceptions of AI. If the researcher collected data on the actual benefits of language learning AI and real challenges being faced by ESL teachers using it, the study may have been more impactful toward policy makers. “Perceived” challenges and opportunities of ESL teachers are irrelevant without actual data of students improving in their learning of English through AI. Without the statistics to prove that the perceptions collected align with factual evidence, the work becomes irrelevant, especially in the eyes of policymakers and educational institutions. If Assali were to introduce an element of factual data of improvements in the language learning setting through AI, the work may be more meaningful toward his intended audience.
In summary, the article makes an important contribution to current discussions about AI in education by offering a statistically grounded view of ESL teachers’ attitudes toward technological change. However, its greatest value may lie in what it reveals about the changing labor dynamics in language teaching and the need for institutional frameworks that support, rather than burden, educators. To move forward, future research should adopt a more holistic perspective that includes student voices and further explores the implications of AI for both teaching labor and second language acquisition outcomes.
References
Assali, M. A. (2025). Bridging the Gap: ESL Teachers’ Views on AI Integration and Its Impact on Language Learning. World Language of English Language, 15(4). DOI: 10.5430/wjel.v15n4p120
Recent Comments