CHALLENGES FACED BY SYRIAN EFL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS IN LEARNING ENGLISH: THE ROLE OF LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES, AI TOOLS, AND PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES

Khalefa Kheder, Nayef Jomaa

Abstract


This study examined the challenges Syrian EFL undergraduate students face in a post-conflict context, focusing on language challenges, perceptions of AI tools, and pedagogical practices. The study used a questionnaire to collect data from 204 undergraduate students at three Syrian universities, assessing language-learning challenges, perceptions of AI tools, and classroom contextual schooling using five-point Likert-scale items. The findings showed that expressing ideas fluently (M = 4.21) was the greatest challenge, while grammar (M = 3.04) and pronunciation (M = 3.47) were much lower. A significant gap in critical awareness of guidance emerged in that students showed moderate-high degrees of awareness of AI tools (M = 3.62) but very low difficulty levels in using the tools (M = 2.85) and overwhelmingly indicated that they needed guidance from teachers (M = 4.16) and that universities had not provided robust AI training (M = 4.03), while teachers did not utilize AI in the classroom (M = 3.67). Female students reported significantly greater challenges with vocabulary than male students. Vocabulary challenges were less significant as students progressed from Year 1 to Year 4, while awareness of inadequacy in the institution increased over time. There were positive correlations across the linguistic, AI, and institutional dimensions, indicating some clustering of challenges. These findings suggest that the Technology Acceptance Model ought to be expanded to include perceived pedagogical practice integration in addition to perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. The study demonstrates that the potential for student agency regarding accessing the technologies provides intervention clues for professional development opportunities and future curriculum design, not hardware expenditures.

Keywords


EFL education, post-conflict learning, artificial intelligence in education, Syrian higher education, Technology Acceptance Model, pedagogical integration

Full Text:

PDF

References


Al Azmeh, Z., Dillabough, J., Fimyar, O., McLaughlin, C., Abdullateef, S., Aloklah, W. A., … Kadan, B. (2020). Cultural trauma and the politics of access to higher education in Syria. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 42(4), 528–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2020.1715922

Al-Khresheh, M. H. (2016). A review study of error analysis theory. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 2(1), 49–59. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299456806_A_Review_Study_of_Error_Analysis_Theory

Belmekki, A., & Djebbari, Z. (2008). The English and Arabic vowel systems dynamics: A comparative descriptive analysis. Revue Maghrébine des Langues, 6(1), 359–370. Retrieved from https://asjp.cerist.dz/en/article/133668

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Buckland, P. (2005). Reshaping the future: Education and postconflict reconstruction. World Bank Publications. Retrieved from https://documents.worldbank.org/pt/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/860731468138857154

Bush, K. D., & Saltarelli, D. (Eds.). (2000). The two faces of education in ethnic conflict: Towards a peacebuilding education for children. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Retrieved from https://protectingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/documents_unicef_the_two_faces_education_in_ethnic_conflict_peace_buil.pdf

Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H., Cheng, G., & Liu, C. (2022). Two decades of artificial intelligence in education: Contributors, collaborations, research topics, challenges, and future directions. Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 28–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48647028

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Designing_and_Conducting_Mixed_Methods_R.html?id=eTwmDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Dryden-Peterson, S. (2016). Refugee education: The crossroads of globalization. Educational Researcher, 45(9), 473–482. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16683398

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551

European School Education Platform. (2024). Artificial intelligence as an asset to language learning in Europe. European Commission — School Education Platform. https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/discover/news/artificial-intelligence-asset-language-learning-europe

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. Retrieved from https://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/research/groups/lacqueys/readings/horowitz.pdf

Hubbard, P. (Ed.). (2009). Computer-assisted language learning: Critical concepts in linguistics. Routledge. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~efs/callcc/

Hyland, K. (2015). Teaching and researching writing. Routledge. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Teaching_and_Researching_Writing.html?id=MC5AEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Ilkka, T. (2018). The impact of artificial intelligence on learning, teaching, and education. European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/12297

INEE. (2024). Minimum standards for education: Preparedness, response, recovery (3rd ed.). Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies. Retrieved from https://inee.org/minimum-standards

Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2024). Incorporating AI in foreign language education: An investigation into ChatGPT's effect on foreign language learners. Education and Information Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12574-6

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x

Kapranov, Y., Iwanowska, B., Stadniczeńko, D., & Wierzchowski, T. (2025). Student perspectives on European language policies and positive developments in the digital context: From challenges to change. Молодий вчений, 2(133), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12574-6

Kessler, G. (2018). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12318

Kharma, N., & Hajjaj, A. (1989). Errors in English among Arabic speakers: Analysis and remedy. Longman. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Errors_in_English_Among_Arabic_Speakers.html?id=YlrlAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/The_Input_Hypothesis.html?id=5ttoAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

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. Retrieved from https://www.library.brawnblog.com/Long1996-Ling%20Env%20L2%20Acq.pdf

Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System, 39(2), 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.04.002

Milton, S. (2018). Higher education and post-conflict recovery. Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-65349-5

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Mushimiyimana, J. B., Nzabalirwa, W., Ndayambaje, I., & Lazareva, A. (2025). ICT integration in Rwandan education: A scoping review of opportunities and challenges. African Journal of Empirical Research, 6(1), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.6.1.21

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759

Novelli, M., Lopes Cardozo, M. T. A., & Smith, A. (2017). The 4Rs framework: Analysing the contribution of education to sustainable peacebuilding in conflict-affected contexts. Journal on Education in Emergencies, 3(1), 14–43. Retrieved from https://archive.nyu.edu/handle/2451/39660

Popenici, S. A., & Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8

Reinders, H., & Hubbard, P. (2013). CALL and learner autonomy: Affordances and constraints. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 359–375). Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323185552_CALL_and_learner_autonomy_Affordances_and_constraints

McLaughlin, C., Dillabough, J., Fimyar, O., Al-Azmeh, Z., & Jebril, M. (2019). Syrian higher education system facing 'complete breakdown' after eight years of war – study. University of Cambridge Research News. Retrieved from https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/syrian-higher-education-system-facing-complete-breakdown-after-eight-years-of-war-study

Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Retrieved from https://www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/Richards-Communicative-Language.pdf

Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2003). Linguistic distance and initial reading acquisition: The case of Arabic diglossia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000225

Savignon, S. J. (Ed.). (2008). Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. Yale University Press. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npsh9

Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the future of education. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/should-robots-replace-teachers-ai-and-the-future-of-education/

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/doc/105840639/Swain-1995-Three-functions-of-output-in-second-language-learning

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781410612700-34/output-hypothesis-merrill-swain

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

World Education News & Reviews. (2025). Rebuilding Syria’s education system: Navigating challenges and embracing opportunities. https://wenr.wes.org/2025/03/rebuilding-syrias-education-system-navigating-challenges-and-embracing-opportunities

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejals.v9i3.753

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The research works published in this journal are free to be accessed. They can be shared (copied and redistributed in any medium or format) and\or adapted (remixed, transformed, and built upon the material for any purpose, commercially and\or not commercially) under the following terms: attribution (appropriate credit must be given indicating original authors, research work name and publication name mentioning if changes were made) and without adding additional restrictions (without restricting others from doing anything the actual license permits). Authors retain the full copyright of their published research works and cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.

Copyright © 2018-2026. European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies (ISSN 2602 - 0254 / ISSN-L 2602 - 0254). All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.