Challenges of Implementing Technology in ESL Writing Classrooms: A Case Study
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
The present study aimed to investigate the challenges and barriers encountered by ESL teachers when they implement technological tools in writing classroom. It also explored teachers’ perceptions towards integrating technology in writing classroom. The study involved observing a number of writing classes from different levels at an English Language Institute at a southwestern university in the United States. Next, an interview was conducted with one of the observed teachers to enquire about implementing technology in the classroom and reasons behind possible challenges. The study revealed some challenges that hindered or prevented teachers from applying technology in writing classroom. Such challenges were technical problems, students’ attitudes towards using technology, lack of time, lack of computers and other devices, and lack of technical support. Moreover, the study showed that teachers had positive perceptions toward using technology to facilitate teaching process. Pedagogical implications and solutions to overcome technical issues are provided for ESL/EFL writing teachers and policy makers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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