A Review of the Literature on the Integration of Technology into the Learning and Teaching of English Language Skills
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technologies have dramatically changed the way people gather information, carry out research, and communicate with others worldwide. Technology has removed the distance obstacles and has made it possible for higher education to effectively teach anyone. Technology integration is being increasingly used in instruction to improve teaching and learning. This rapid development of technology integration has presented a better pattern to find the new teaching models. Consequently, it has a key role in learning and teaching language skills. The integration of technology to create a context to teach and learn English skills has a lot of advantages. The fundamental aim of this paper is to review the issues related to technology integration in the learning and teaching of language skills. In this paper, the researcher defines the term technology integration, expresses the reason of integrating technology, explains the role of technologies in promoting learning, elaborates teachers’ roles and learners’ roles, reviews previous studies on the benefits of technology in the learning and teaching of language skills, indicates the situation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in Iran, and finally mentions the recommendations for the successful integration of technology. The review of literature revealed that the integration of technology into the classrooms considerably improves the learning and teaching of English language skills.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.458 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it