Startseite Linguistik & Semiotik Students’ perspectives on Facebook and Instagram ELT opportunities: a comparative study
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Students’ perspectives on Facebook and Instagram ELT opportunities: a comparative study

  • Amin Shahini EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 13. Mai 2025
Language Learning in Higher Education
Aus der Zeitschrift Language Learning in Higher Education Band 15 Heft 1

Abstract

In recent years, Social Networking Sites (SNSs) have witnessed a substantial surge in global user adoption. Apart from their primary intended functionalities, these platforms have been increasingly utilized for language learning purposes. However, the extent to which they cater to the needs of language learners remains a longstanding question. The present study primarily aimed to investigate how EFL undergraduate and postgraduate learners (N = 84) perceived the use of Facebook and Instagram, employing the components of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Secondly, it sought to explore the potential ways in which these SNSs can contribute to language learning, utilizing semi-structured interviews. By triangulating the findings from the UTAUT2 questionnaire and interviews, the majority of the participants expressed a preference for Instagram, considering it more effortless, enjoyable, and supportive among EFL learners. However, concerning their suitability for language teaching, the study revealed mixed results for both SNSs. The study concludes by presenting and discussing suggestions on how to effectively utilize the affordances of these platforms for second language teaching.

Keywords: Facebook; Instagram; language learning; SNSs; TAM; UTAUT2
Corresponding author: Amin Shahini, Department of English Language Teaching, Gorgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran, E-mail:

Appendix 1: Interview samples on the components of UTAUT2 model for both Instagram and Facebook

Construct Instagram % N Facebook % N
Behavioral intention “…I will continue using Instagram” 95.2 80 “…I have stopped using FB and won’t resume as long as it is filtered” 9.5 8
Effort expectancy “It is easy to use and log in” 90.4 76 “…FB used to be easy to use, but now it is not since it is filtered” 79.7 67
Facilitating condition “ ….My friends help me when I face problem in using Instagram” 59.5 50 “…There were some people who have helped me with FB, but not now” 50.0 42
Habit “…I am used to checking my Instagram many times a day” 84.5 71 “…Not a habit anymore” 4.7 4
Hedonic motivation “….It is fun and attractive” 90.4 76 “…It is not fun anymore since whenever I log into FB, I feel lonely. Few people like and comment on my posts compared to past” 39.2 33
Performance expectancy “ …it can help us in learning English” 50.0 42 “…FB is not suitable for language learning” 50.0 42
Price value “….Downloading clips increases internet charges” 50.0 42 “….It is cheap and chargeless, however, we need to purchase VPN to log in” 39.2 33
Social influence “…My parents don’t like me to spend much time on social networks” 20.2 17 “…No one encourages me to use FB because most of my friends have left FB for Instagram” 9.5 8

Appendix 2: Sample interview results for learners’ perspectives on Instagram use to teach language aspects

Language aspect Students’ quotes
Grammar “If the grammar is presented in the form of a video clip or a set of pictures, learning it is not only interesting but even more effective.” (Majid, na = 46)

“The teacher can record part of his teaching grammar in the class and post it on Instagram. This way, the students become more motivated since it is a new method.” (Student 34, n = 30)
Listening “Listening can be presented by short video clips.” (Bita, n = 10)
Pronunciation “By recording video clips and focusing on the correct pronunciation of words and sentences, Instagram can be useful.” (Mohammad, n = 16)
Reading “The teacher can post some reading texts and caption it with some general or specific questions. Some key vocabularies can be highlighted in the text.” (Reza, n = 18)

“Reading texts can be accompanied with audio files so that students can hear the standard pronunciation as well.” (Amir, n = 14)
Speaking “I can’t think of any activity that can be done in Instagram to improve English speaking.” (Kambiz, n = 40)
Vocabulary “Sharing the words with their L1 equivalents is a great way to speed up the acquisition of the words.” (Gohar, n = 40)

“Providing the pictures of the unknown words and show their meaning through pictures.” (Helia, n = 24)
Writing “Students can write about a topic that the teacher posts on his page on Instagram.” (Sara, n = 13)

“Students can reply to each other posts and this way they can generate new pieces of language.” (Saba, n = 17)

  1. an refers to the frequency of the quotes among the participants.

Appendix 3: Sample interview results for learners’ perspectives on Facebook ELT use

Language aspect Students’ quotes
Grammar “Facebook can be used to create grammar lessons by designing posts or videos that show the specific point in question.” (Babak, n = 13)

“Grammar points can be presented via synchronous chat with the teacher or a more knowledgeable other.” (Sara, n = 30)
Listening “ Students can improve their listening by watching English clips” (Hasan, n = 65)

“Students can improve their listening through calling native speakers or more knowledgeable others” (Arnoosh, n = 41)
Pronunciation “Video clips at an appropriate speed rate can be influential in improving pronunciation” (Mohsen, n = 59)
Reading “Short reading texts can be posted on the timeline followed by various comprehension questions and before, while, and post reading activities” (Niloofar, n = 31)
Speaking “Speaking activities can be done through online calls with others” (Samaneh, n = 50)
Vocabulary “It is a good idea to use posters to teach useful vocabulary or expressions.” (Ali, n = 11). “It can be taught by online chat with native speakers.” (Amir, n = 29)
Writing “Students can post their ideas about a particular post followed by the teacher or a more proficient peer giving constructive feedback” (Hamed, n = 20)

References

Aiyegbayo, Olajumoke. 2015. How and why academics do and do not use iPads for academic teaching? British Journal of Educational Technology 46(6). 1324–1332. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12202.Suche in Google Scholar

Akbari, Elham, Albert Pilot & Robert-Jan Simons. 2015. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in foreign language learning through Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 48. 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.036.Suche in Google Scholar

Al Arif, Thohir Zamroni Zainuddin. 2019. The use of social media for English language learning: An exploratory study of EFL university students. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching 3(2). 224–233. https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v3i2.1921.Suche in Google Scholar

Al-Bahrani, Abdullah, Darshak Patel & Brennan Sheridan. 2015. Engaging students using social media: The students’ perspective. International Review of Economics Education 19. 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2015.06.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Al-Kandari, Ali Abdulaziz, Fahed Yacoub Al-Sumait & Amani Al-Hunaiyyan. 2017. Looking perfect: Instagram use in a Kuwaiti cultural context. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 10(4). 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2017.1281430.Suche in Google Scholar

Al-Maatouk, Qasem, Mohd Shahizan Othman, Ahmed Aldraiweesh, Uthman Alturki, Waleed Mohammed Al-Rahmi & Ahmed Abdullah Aljeraiwi. 2020. Task-technology fit and technology acceptance model application to structure and evaluate the adoption of social media in academia. IEEE Access 8. 78427–78440. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2990420.Suche in Google Scholar

Ansari, Janaki Narzary & Navin Ahmad Khan. 2020. Exploring the role of social media in collaborative learning: The new domain of learning. Smart Learning Environments 7(1). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00118-7.Suche in Google Scholar

Ardies, Jan, Sven De Maeyer, David Gijbels & Hilde van Keulen. 2014. Students’ attitudes towards technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 25(1). 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9268-x.Suche in Google Scholar

Aydin, Selami. 2012. A review of research on Facebook as an educational environment. Educational Technology Research and Development 60(6). 1093–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9260-7.Suche in Google Scholar

Baiyun, Chen & Aimee Deyonelles. 2015. Exploring students’ mobile learning practices in higher education | EDUCAUSE.edu. http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/exploring-students-mobile-learning-practices-higher-education (accessed 26 January 2017).Suche in Google Scholar

Baker, Sarah Elsie & Rosalind Edwards. 2012. How many qualitative interviews is enough? NCRM 1. 1–42.Suche in Google Scholar

Barki, Henri & Jon Hartwick. 1994. Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Quarterly 18(1). 59–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/249610.Suche in Google Scholar

Barrot, Jessie Salas. 2021. Social media as a language learning environment: A systematic review of the literature (2008–2019). Computer Assisted Language Learning 35(9). 2534–2562. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1883673.Suche in Google Scholar

Blattner, Geraldine & Lara Lomicka. 2012. Facebook-ing and the social generation: A new era of language learning. ALSIC 15(1). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4000/alsic.2413.Suche in Google Scholar

Bruner, Jerome. 1983. Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Clark, Christine & Paul Gruba. 2010. The use of social networking sites for foreign language learning: An auto-ethnographic study of Livemocha. In Caroline Steel, Michael Keppell, Philippa Gerbic & Susan Housego (eds.), Curriculum technology transformation for an unknown future. Sydney: Proceedings of the 2010 ASCILITE Conference.10.14742/apubs.2010.2040Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion & Keith Morrison. 2011. Research methods in education. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Creswell, John & David Creswell. 2017. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Suche in Google Scholar

Davis, Fred. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3). 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.Suche in Google Scholar

Eckhart, Beverly. 2009. Teaching pronunciation with Facebook and Photobooth. Ohio TESOL Journal 2(1). 10–11.Suche in Google Scholar

Field, Andy. 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. NY: Sage.Suche in Google Scholar

Fodeman, Doug & Marje Monroe. 2009. The impact of Facebook on our students. Teacher Librarian 36(5). 36–40.Suche in Google Scholar

Godwin-Jones, Robert. 2008. Web-writing 2.0: Enabling, documenting, and assessing writing online. Language Learning & Technology 12(2). 7–13.Suche in Google Scholar

Kabilan, Muhammad Kamarul, Norlida Ahmad, Zeinol Abidin & Mohd Jafre. 2010. Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education 13. 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Kacetl, Jaroslav & Blanka Klímová. 2019. Use of smartphone applications in English language learning – A challenge for foreign language education. Education Sciences 9(3). 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030179.Suche in Google Scholar

Kárpáti, Andrea. 2009. Web 2 technologies for net native language learners: A “social CALL”. ReCALL 21(2). 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009000160.Suche in Google Scholar

Kelly, Rachel. 2015. An exploration of Instagram to develop ESL learners’ writing proficiency. An unpublished master dissertation. British Council.Suche in Google Scholar

Lacina, Jan. 2005. Technology in the classroom: Media literacy and learning. Childhood Education 82(2). 118–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2006.10521361.Suche in Google Scholar

Lamy, Marie-Noëlle & Katerina Zourou (eds.). 2013. Social networking for language education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137023384Suche in Google Scholar

Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815355Suche in Google Scholar

Legris, Paul, John Ingham & Pierre Collerette. 2003. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management 40. 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4.Suche in Google Scholar

Lohnes, Sarah & Charles Kinzer. 2007. Questioning assumptions about students’ expectations for technology in college classrooms. Innovate 3(5). 1–6.Suche in Google Scholar

Lomicka, Lara & Gillian Lord. 2009. The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Suche in Google Scholar

Liaw, Meei-Ling. 2011. Review of Livemocha. Language Learning & Technology 15(1). 36–40.Suche in Google Scholar

Liu, Min, Michael Evans, Elaine Horwitz, Suhyeon Lee, Maggie McCrory, Jinsoo Park & Cynthia Parrish. 2013. A study of the use of social network sites for language learning by university ESL students. In Marie-Noëlle Lamy & Katerina Zourou (eds.), Social networking for language education, 137–157. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137023384_8Suche in Google Scholar

Long, Michael. 1982. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 3(2). 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126.Suche in Google Scholar

Mackey, Alison & Susan Gass. 2005. Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suche in Google Scholar

Manca, Stefania. 2020. Snapping, pinning, liking or texting: Investigating social media in higher education beyond Facebook. The Internet and Higher Education 44. 100707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100707.Suche in Google Scholar

McBride, Kara. 2009. Social networking sites in foreign language classes: Opportunities for re-creation. In Lara Lomicka & Gillian Lord (eds.), The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning, 35–58. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Suche in Google Scholar

Megele, Claudia. 2014. Theorising Twitter chat. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice 2(2). 46–51. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v2i2.106.Suche in Google Scholar

Mitchell, Kendra. 2012. A social tool: Why and how ESOL students use Facebook. CALICO Journal 29(3). 471–493. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.3.471-493.Suche in Google Scholar

Mills, Nicole. 2009. Facebook and the use of social networking tools to enhance language learner motivation and engagement. Paper presented at the Northeast Association for Language Learning Technology (NEALLT) Conference, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 30–31 October.Suche in Google Scholar

Mills, Nicole. 2011. Situated learning through social networking communities: The development of joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire. CALICO Journal 28(2). 345–368. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.345-368.Suche in Google Scholar

Morse, Janice. 2000. Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research 10(1). 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183.Suche in Google Scholar

Murphy, Kevin & Charles Davidshofer. 1991. Psychological testing: Principles and applications, 4th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Suche in Google Scholar

Nicolaou, Christos, Maria Matsiola & George Kalliris. 2019. Technology-enhanced learning and teaching methodologies through audiovisual media. Education Sciences 9(3). 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030196.Suche in Google Scholar

Özdemir, Emrah. 2017. Promoting EFL learners’ intercultural communication effectiveness: A focus on Facebook. Computer Assisted Language Learning 30(6). 510–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1325907.Suche in Google Scholar

Prichard, Caleb. 2013. Using social networking sites as a platform for second language instruction. TESOL Journal 4(4). 752–758. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.113.Suche in Google Scholar

Queirolo, Joshua. 2009. Is Facebook as good as face-to-face? Learning & Leading with Technology 37(4). 8–9.Suche in Google Scholar

Raman, Arumugam & Yusmini Don. 2013. Preservice teachers’ acceptance of learning management software: An application of the UTAUT2 model. International Education Studies 6(7). 157–164. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n7p157.Suche in Google Scholar

Rainger, Philip. 2005. Accessibility and mobile learning. In Agnes Kukulska-Hulme & John Traxler (eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Roblyer, Margaret, Marcia McDaniel, Melinda Webb, Jeffrey Herman & Joan Witty. 2010. Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. Internet and Higher Education 13. 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Robson, Colin. 2011. Real world research, 3rd edn. Chichester: Wiley.Suche in Google Scholar

Salaway, Gail & Judith Borreson Caruso. 2007. The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Colorado: ECAR.Suche in Google Scholar

Sangeeta, Goele & Udit Tandon. 2021. Factors influencing adoption of online teaching by school teachers: A study during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Affairs 21(4). e2503. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2503.Suche in Google Scholar

Shih, Ru-Chu. 2011. Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 27(5). 829–845. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.934.Suche in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2002. Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52(1). 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179.Suche in Google Scholar

Sun, Yu-Chih & Feng-Ying Yang. 2015. I help, therefore, I learn: Service learning on Web 2.0 in an EFL speaking class. Computer Assisted Language Learning 28(3). 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.818555.Suche in Google Scholar

Swanson, Richard. 1982. High technology, training and crystal balls. The Criterion 1. 1–2.Suche in Google Scholar

Swanson, Richard. 1987. Training technology system: A method for identifying and solving training problems in industry and business. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 24(4). 7–17.Suche in Google Scholar

Tan, Gregory, Keng-Boon Ooi, Lih-Yee Leong & Billy Lin. 2014. Predicting the drivers of behavioral intention to use mobile learning: A hybrid SEM-Neural Networks approach. Computers in Human Behavior 36. 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.052.Suche in Google Scholar

Terry, Gareth & Nikki Hayfield. 2021. Essentials of thematic analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.10.1037/0000238-000Suche in Google Scholar

Toetenel, Lisette. 2014. Social networking: A collaborative open educational resource. Computer Assisted Language Learning 27(2). 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.818561.Suche in Google Scholar

Valencia, José Antonio Álvarez. 2016. Language views on social networking sites for language learning: The case of Busuu. Computer Assisted Language Learning 29(5). 853–867. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1069361.Suche in Google Scholar

VanVoorhis, Christopher & Betsy Morgan. 2007. Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 3(2). 43–50. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043.Suche in Google Scholar

Vasileiou, Konstantina, Julie Barnett, Susannah Thorpe & Terry Young. 2018. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7.Suche in Google Scholar

Venkatesh, Viswanath, Michael Morris, Gordon Davis & Fred Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3). 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.Suche in Google Scholar

Venkatesh, Viswanath, James Thong & Xin Xu. 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly 36(1). 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.Suche in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Wang, He & Shu Wang. 2010. User acceptance of mobile internet based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: Investigating the determinants and gender differences. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 38. 415–426. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.3.415.Suche in Google Scholar

Waycott, Jenny, Sue Bennett, Gregor Kennedy, Barney Dalgarno & Kathleen Gray. 2010. Digital divides? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers & Education 54. 1202–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.006.Suche in Google Scholar

Wong, Alex, Samantha Ho, Olumuyiwa Olusanya, Marc Antonini & Deirdre Lyness. 2021. The use of social media and online communications in times of pandemic COVID-19. Journal of the Intensive Care Society 22(3). 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1751143720966280.Suche in Google Scholar

Yunus, Melor Md, Hadi Salehi & Chuo Chenzi. 2012. Integrating social networking tools into ESL writing classrooms: Strengths and weaknesses. English Language Teaching 5(8). 42–48. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n8p42.Suche in Google Scholar

Zourou, Katerina. 2012. On the attractiveness of social media for language learning: A look at the state of the art. ALSIC 15(1). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4000/alsic.2436.Suche in Google Scholar

Zourou, Katerina. 2013. Research challenges in informal social networked language learning communities. E-Learning Papers 34. 1–11.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-05-24
Accepted: 2025-03-11
Published Online: 2025-05-13
Published in Print: 2025-05-26

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction
  3. Integration, collaboration, friendship as core messages for younger generations
  4. Research Articles
  5. Research practice and culture in European universities’ Language Centres. Results of a survey in CercleS member institutions
  6. Language practices in the work communities of Finnish Language Centres
  7. Fostering transparency: a critical introduction of generative AI in students’ assignments
  8. Expert versus novice academic writing: a Multi-Dimensional analysis of professional and learner texts in different disciplines
  9. Raising language awareness to foster self-efficacy in pre-professional writers of English as a Foreign Language: a case study of Czech students of Electrical Engineering and Informatics
  10. Does an autonomising scheme contribute to changing university students’ representations of language learning?
  11. Investigating the relationship between self-regulated learning and language proficiency among EFL students in Vietnam
  12. Students’ perspectives on Facebook and Instagram ELT opportunities: a comparative study
  13. Designing a scenario-based learning framework for a university-level Arabic language course
  14. Washback effects of the Portuguese CAPLE exams from Chinese university students and teachers’ perspectives: a mixed-methods study
  15. Students’ perception of the impact of (meta)linguistic knowledge on learning German
  16. Language policy in Higher Education of Georgia
  17. Activity Reports
  18. Intercomprehension and collaborative learning to interact in a plurilingual academic environment
  19. Teaching presentation skills through popular science: an opportunity for a collaborative and transversal approach to ESP teaching
  20. Japanese kana alphabet retention through handwritten reflection cards
  21. Decolonising the curriculum in Japanese language education in the UK and Europe
https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2024-0034
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
Facebook; Instagram; language learning; SNSs; TAM; UTAUT2

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction
  3. Integration, collaboration, friendship as core messages for younger generations
  4. Research Articles
  5. Research practice and culture in European universities’ Language Centres. Results of a survey in CercleS member institutions
  6. Language practices in the work communities of Finnish Language Centres
  7. Fostering transparency: a critical introduction of generative AI in students’ assignments
  8. Expert versus novice academic writing: a Multi-Dimensional analysis of professional and learner texts in different disciplines
  9. Raising language awareness to foster self-efficacy in pre-professional writers of English as a Foreign Language: a case study of Czech students of Electrical Engineering and Informatics
  10. Does an autonomising scheme contribute to changing university students’ representations of language learning?
  11. Investigating the relationship between self-regulated learning and language proficiency among EFL students in Vietnam
  12. Students’ perspectives on Facebook and Instagram ELT opportunities: a comparative study
  13. Designing a scenario-based learning framework for a university-level Arabic language course
  14. Washback effects of the Portuguese CAPLE exams from Chinese university students and teachers’ perspectives: a mixed-methods study
  15. Students’ perception of the impact of (meta)linguistic knowledge on learning German
  16. Language policy in Higher Education of Georgia
  17. Activity Reports
  18. Intercomprehension and collaborative learning to interact in a plurilingual academic environment
  19. Teaching presentation skills through popular science: an opportunity for a collaborative and transversal approach to ESP teaching
  20. Japanese kana alphabet retention through handwritten reflection cards
  21. Decolonising the curriculum in Japanese language education in the UK and Europe
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 17.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cercles-2024-0034/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen