Machine translation in language acquisition: A study on EFL students' perceptions and practices in Saudi Arabia and South Korea

Abstract

BackgroundLanguage learners are taking advantage of the increased accuracy afforded by machine translation (MT) tools like Google Translate. There is a growing debate as to whether these tools support or hinder English as a foreign language (EFL) education. Some EFL students are drawn to MT tools to save time and energy when communicating, but how this use relates to second language acquisition needs to be clarified.ObjectiveThis study investigated the perceptions and practices of MT tools among university EFL students in Saudi Arabia and South Korea.MethodsThe study surveyed Saudi (n = 310) and South Korean (n = 160) university students to explore the use of MT tools in EFL learning. It used mean scores, correlation analysis, and structural equation modelling to understand the perceived benefits and limitations of MT tools and their influence on the use of translation websites. The findings were triangulated using content analysis of open‐ended items.Results and ConclusionFindings indicate students showed a high level of acceptance and utilization of MT tools. English avoidance behaviour (B = 0.43), benefits (B = 0.32), and foreign language proficiency (B = −0.19) predicted 61% of actual use of MT tools like Google Translate. Further, students frequently used MT tools despite the reported concerns about accuracy mistakes. Saudi students listed a more comprehensive array of why they use MT tools than Korean students, while Saudis and Koreans frequently used MT tools for individual word and sentence translations.ImplicationsStudents should edit MT output when writing and are encouraged to use the voice recording and other functions of MT tools to learn language skills. Instructors must prevent overuse and dependency on MT tools, especially among low‐proficiency students who want to avoid using English.

Using the Technology Acceptance Model to Understand Attitudes about Smartphone Translators for EFL Writing

“…This could be a sign that there was a sentiment that the ease of use did not necessarily make it useful, but the EFL learners would use it anyway. These results indicate that students are using smartphone translators because they are easy, not to learn as was found in the literature (Almusharraf & Bailey, 2023;Benda, 2014;Byun, 2022;Chandra & Yuyan, 2018;Dennis, 2019).…”

“…RD is the extent to which the technology aids the learner to reach a goal and understand how the technology works. RD is also found in the literature, with some studies voicing a favorable opinion (Almusharraf & Bailey, 2023;Chung, 2020;Kim & Han, 2023), while others sounded some warnings about RD (Chung, 2020;Lee & Lee, 2021).…”

“…They preferred to use Google Translate to a paper bilingual dictionary because it was easier and faster. Almusharraf and Bailey (2023) found that MT was easy to use, indicating how userfriendly they are. Jolley and Maimone (2022) concluded that students were aware of the limitations of MT but continued to use them due to the ease of use and the perceived usefulness of the device, which could eventually lead to an increase in a student's metalinguistic knowledge.…”

“…Chung (2020) determined that using MT paired with classroom activities helped the students better understand the differences and similarities between the two languages. Almusharraf and Bailey (2023) found that MT allowed students to explore the differences between culture and language using MT. Kim and Han (2023) concluded that with other educational resources, MT allowed students to discover the nuance between the languages.…”

“…The original TAM was altered to add more external social factors to the equation, creating TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). and RD (Almusharraf & Bailey, 2023;Chung, 2020;Kim & Han, 2023;Lee & Lee, 2021). Therefore, they should be separated within the TAM structure in this case.…”