Abstract
This study compares traditional teaching methods with AI-based gamified approaches in developing EFL speaking skills. While traditional methods emphasize teacher- centered instruction and controlled practice, AI-gamified approaches promote interaction, autonomy, and real-time feedback. A quasi-experimental design was used with two groups of university students. The experimental group used AI-driven gamified platforms, while the control group followed traditional instruction. The results show significant improvement in fluency, participation, and motivation in the experimental group. The study highlights the pedagogical advantages of AI-gamified learning environments and their potential for transforming language education.References
1. Ellis, R. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa017
2. Krashen, S. (2021). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586956
3. Tai, T. (2024). Effects of AI speaking tools on willingness to communicate. System, 117,
4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103015
5. Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning outcomes. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10080-6
6. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31032.72969
7. Li, S., & Hafner, C. A. (2023). Mobile-assisted language learning and AI integration. Language Learning & Technology, 27(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10125/73456
8. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching testing. Applied Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1
9. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
10. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.
11. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
12. Richards, J. C. (2020). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
13. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
15. Li, S., & Hafner, C. A. (2023). Mobile-assisted language learning and artificial intelligence. Language Learning Technology, https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1903045
16. Wang, Y., Li, M., & Zhang, X. (2023). AI-assisted speaking practice and anxiety reduction. Computers Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104678
17. Woo, M., & Choi, H. (2021). Systematic review of AI-based language learning tools. Educational Technology Research Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09879-3
18. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2021). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.21810
19. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020