MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406808249 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v15n3p364

Assessing Pedagogical Strategies Integrating ChatGPT in English Language Teaching: A Structural Equation Modelling-Based Study

2025· article· en· W4406808249 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Fahad Aljabr, Nidal Al Said, Mohamed Jlassi

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersAjman University
KeywordsComputer scienceStructural equation modelingMathematics educationMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigates the impact of AI-powered ChatGPT technology on current pedagogical strategies, focusing on student engagement, language proficiency, and perceived usability. Data was collected through structured surveys from 301 English language learners at Ajman University (49.9%) and University of Hail (50.1%) in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia respectively. Grounded in constructivist learning theory, the results reveal strong positive outcomes. The integration of ChatGPT into pedagogical strategies significantly enhances student engagement, improves language proficiency (β=0.698, p<0.000), and increases perceived usability among English language learners in higher education institutions in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Respondents reported that these strategies made lessons more engaging and interactive, improved their language skills, and provided a user-friendly learning interface. These findings underscore the potential of AI tools like ChatGPT to revolutionize language education by offering interactive, personalized, and effective learning experiences. Additionally, the study supports the principles of constructivist learning theory, highlighting students’ positive attitudes and perceptions towards the integration of ChatGPT-enhanced pedagogical strategies,. Practical recommendations and study limitations are also discussed.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207