MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410032243 · doi:10.5430/elr.v14n1p34

Harnessing Technology: Enhancing Literacy Development for ESL Secondary School Students

2025· article· en· W4410032243 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. M. Raihanah

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyMathematics educationPedagogySociologyComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the innovative integration of technology in literacy development for English as a Second Language (ESL) learners, focusing specifically on secondary school students in Malaysia. As educational practices shift from traditional methods of the 20th century to advanced technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), ESL students encounter unprecedented opportunities to engage more effectively with the English language. Employing a comprehensive literature review and thematic analysis methodology, this study identifies emerging themes in technology integration within ESL education. Key themes explored include the effectiveness of gamification, AI-assisted tools, and multimodal literacy, as well as the challenges posed by the digital divide, particularly concerning disparities in resource access between urban and rural areas. The findings highlight the urgent need for equitable access to technology and tailored interventions to support literacy development among all ESL learners. By prioritizing enhancements in technological infrastructure and fostering personalized learning experiences, educators and policymakers can bridge the literacy development gap. This paper advocates for a balanced approach to technology integration that promotes critical thinking, collaboration, and human interaction, ensuring that every student has the opportunity to fully leverage technology in their literacy development journey.

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)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.352 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207