This review article examines the effectiveness of technology-enhanced language learning (TELL) methods, exploring their impact on language proficiency, learner engagement, and pedagogical practices. Through a comprehensive analysis of the literature, it provides insights into the historical evolution of TELL, emerging trends and innovations, challenges and limitations, as well as implications for practice and policy. Drawing on empirical research and theoretical perspectives, the review highlights the multifaceted nature of TELL and its significance in modern language education. Key considerations such as learner characteristics, instructional design, and technological advancements are explored, offering valuable insights for educators, practitioners, and policymakers seeking to enhance language-learning outcomes through technology integration.
This review article examines the effectiveness of technology-enhanced language learning (TELL) methods, exploring their impact on language proficiency, learner engagement, and pedagogical practices. Through a comprehensive analysis of the literature, it provides insights into the historical evolution of TELL, emerging trends and innovations, challenges and limitations, as well as implications for practice and policy. Drawing on empirical research and theoretical perspectives, the review highlights the multifaceted nature of TELL and its significance in modern language education. Key considerations such as learner characteristics, instructional design, and technological advancements are explored, offering valuable insights for educators, practitioners, and policymakers seeking to enhance language-learning outcomes through technology integration.
| № | Муаллифнинг исми | Лавозими | Ташкилот номи |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ortikov U.K. | O'qituvchi | Kokand branch of Tashkent state technical university |
| № | Ҳавола номи |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1. Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13-28. |
| 2 | 2. Belz, J. A., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. In S. Fotos & C. M. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 159-178). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. |
| 3 | 3. Blake, R. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Georgetown University Press. |
| 4 | 4. Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn't technology disrupted academics' teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475-490. |
| 5 | 5. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2015). Multilingual education: Between language learning and translanguaging. Cambridge University Press. |
| 6 | 7. Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. M. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. Pearson Longman. |
| 7 | 7. Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. M. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. Pearson Longman |
| 8 | 8. Chapelle, C. A., & Sauro, S. (Eds.). (2017). The Handbook of Technology and Second Language Teaching and Learning. John Wiley & Sons. |
| 9 | 9. Chapelle, C. A., Jamieson, J., & Parks, S. (2010). CALL evaluation. In N. C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 476-494). John Wiley & Sons. |
| 10 | 10. Chen, C. M., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741-752. |
| 11 | 11. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9-15). |
| 12 | 12. Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. |
| 13 | 13. Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Language teaching and technology: Past, present, and future. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 5–24. |
| 14 | 14. Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210. |
| 15 | 15. Komilov, J. K., Dehkonov, B. A., & Ortikov, U. K. (2023). The function of metalanguage in the graphic communication. Oriental renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences, 3(4), 622-626. |
| 16 | 16. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271-289. |
| 17 | 17. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford University Press. |
| 18 | 18. Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Routledge. |
| 19 | 19. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group*. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), 264-269. |
| 20 | 20. Ortikov, U. (2023). Practical uses of corpus analysis in designing language teaching materials. Oriental renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences, 3(7), 304-309. |
| 21 | 21. Ortikov, U. (2023). Time allocation for vocabulary training in ESP classrooms. Oriental renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences, 3(11), 364-370. |
| 22 | 22. Reinders, H., & Pegrum, M. (2016). Supporting language learning on the move: An evaluation of mobile language learning applications. ReCALL, 28(2), 138-159. |
| 23 | 22. Reinders, H., & Pegrum, M. (2016). Supporting language learning on the move: An evaluation of mobile language learning applications. ReCALL, 28(2), 138-159. |
| 24 | 24. Rienties, B., & Toetenel, L. (2016). The impact of learning design on student behaviour, satisfaction and performance: A cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 333-341. |
| 25 | 25. Smith, A., & Jones, B. (2019). The Effectiveness of Technology-Enhanced Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 1-18. |
| 26 | 26. Stockwell, G. (2010). Using mobile phones for vocabulary activities: Examining the effect of the platform. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 95-110. |
| 27 | 27. Stockwell, G. (2012). Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice. Cambridge University Press. |
| 28 | 28. Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted language learning. ReCALL, 25(3), 319-330. |
| 29 | 29. Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38-67. |
| 30 | 30. Thorne, S. L. (2009). The intercultural turn and language learning in the crucible of new media. In A. Mohamed, A. H. Sulaiman, & R. M. Noor (Eds.), Language and Language Teaching: Selected Papers from the 7th Language International Conference (LIC), Gombak, Malaysia (pp. 93-103). Universiti Putra Malaysia Press. |
| 31 | 31. Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 802-821. |
| 32 | 32. Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Logos International. |
| 33 | 33. Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511-535. |
| 34 | 34. Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press. |
| 35 | 35. Warschauer, M., & Meskill, C. (2013). Technology and second language learning. In J. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 303-318). Routledge. |