Speaking
For example, Arnó-Macià and Rueda-Ramos ( 2011 ) designed tasks for reading, listening, and speaking practice in Quantum leap platform. Researchers have designed listening tasks in Moodle platform; students were required to analyze, evaluate, and summarize content after listening (Yang et al., 2013 , 2014 ). Srebnaja and Stavicka ( 2018 ) designed WebQuests-based speaking and writing tasks.
All of these studies noted that learners' performance in speaking, listening, reading, writing, and grammar improved after completing the computer-assisted adaptive language learning tasks. In addition, students' critical thinking skills were developed.
As shown in Table 2 , the following tools were used by researchers for the development of collaborative-based language learning activities: (1) collaboration tools: Google Docs, Google Drive, Wiki, Edmodo, and E-writing forum. These collaborative tools have the following functions: sharing, collaborative editing, cloud storage, synchronized display, and help students freely share information in various formats (e.g., text, images, videos, web links, audio recordings, music, etc.) on the platform so that they can exchange ideas and collaborate on editing content; (2) creative tools: Adobe Spark, to support students' expression of ideas; (3) social tools: Blogs or WordPress, to support students in reading and commenting on each other's work.
Collaboration-based language learning activities.
Amir et al. ( ) | Social tools: Blog | Collaborate on writing tasks | Writing | Collaboration |
García-Sánchez and Burbules ( ) | Learning management system: Moodle Collaboration tools: Wiki | Students propose solutions to social problems | Speaking Vocabulary | Communication Collaboration Digital literacy Problem solving |
Lai ( ) | Collaboration tools: Padlet Creative tools: Home Styler, Thing Link | Collaborate on different tasks, such as creating vocabulary list, greeting cards | Vocabulary Grammar | Collaborative Communication |
Mohamadi Zenouzagh ( ) | Collaboration tools: E-writing forum | Collaborate on writing tasks | Writing | Collaboration |
Valdebenito and Chen ( ) | Creative tools: Adobe Spark, Google My Maps Collaboration tools: Google Doc, Word Press | Collaborate on culture tasks | Listening Speaking Writing vocabulary Grammar | Critical thinking Digital literacy Collaboration Communication |
Huh and Lee ( ) | Collaboration tools: Google Docs | Cooperate to complete role plays or songs to express the vocabulary learned | Speaking Writing | Creativity and innovation |
Hosseinpour et al. ( ) | Collaboration tools: Edmodo | Collaborate on writing tasks | Writing | Collaboration |
Girgin and Cabaroglu ( ) | Classroom interactive tools: Quizlet, Quizizz, Cram, Kahoot Creative tools: Story Bird, Voki, Go Animate, Animoto, Powtoon, Canva, Poster MyWall Collaboration tools: Padlet | Watch the video Collaborating on classroom tasks Creating digital stories Share and communicate | Listening Speaking Reading Writing Grammar vocabulary | Collaboration Critical thinking Creativity and innovation communication |
Chen et al. ( ) | Creative tools: Edu Venture Wearable devices: Google Cardboard | Solve problems and create videos collaboratively | Vocabulary | Problem solving |
Collaboration-based language learning activities are those in which students work in groups to solve problems and complete tasks proposed by the teacher, such as asking students to provide an essay or present their ideas in other ways (e.g., a solution, a report, and a performance). For example, Amir et al. ( 2011 ) asked students to work in groups to publish six articles based on different topics over the course of 14 weeks, and one of the tasks required students to find and discuss software about computer-assisted writing.
Mohamadi Zenouzagh ( 2018 ) designed a collaborative writing activity based on the E-writing platform. Valdebenito and Chen ( 2019 ) designed a collaborative activity on the theme of “food and culture” in which students first had to use Google Maps to identify geographic areas related to the content, then use a Google Doc to record their ideas, and finally use video production tools such as Adobe Spark to express their ideas and share them on the WordPress platform. Huh and Lee ( 2020 ) designed a creative learning English collaborative activity in which students first used a mobile app to learn how to spell words, then the group took the words they learned and expressed them through the role play and song. Lai ( 2017 ) designed different collaborative tasks, for example, students needed to use the ThingLink tool to create vocabulary lists and greeting cards related to the topic, which were then shared on the Padlet platform and discussed. In addition, students were required to use HomeStyler to collaboratively design a dream home and use some vocabulary related to “location” to describe the design of their home.
Girgin and Cabaroglu ( 2021 ) designed an English learning project that integrates Web 2.0 technology and flipped classroom, and students used Padlet to watch videos in class. In grammar classes, students used Kahoot, Quizlet, Quizizz, Animoto, Powtoon, and Poster MyWall to answer grammar questions. In vocabulary and reading classes, students used tools such as Mind Meister, Voki, Canva, Cram, Go Animate and Story-bird to create mind maps, as well as create digital stories, which can be presented and shared. Chen et al. ( 2021 ) used virtual reality technology to design language learning activities. Learners were required to first watch a virtual reality scene and think about how to solve the problem based on a series of guiding questions provided by the teacher. Then students role-played in English to create a virtual reality video of the problem being solved.
The results of the abovementioned studies showed that collaborative-based language learning activities facilitated the development of learners' language skills. The researchers noted that collaborative problem-solving language learning activities provided learners with a large number of writing tasks, such as writing reports, essays, or creating storylines and designing works. The process of sharing with each other enabled to point out grammatical errors (Amir et al., 2011 ; Mohamadi Zenouzagh, 2018 ; Hosseinpour et al., 2019 ). When learners used multimedia resources to create vocabulary lists and greeting cards, their vocabulary and grammar skills were also improved (Lai, 2017 ).
At the same time, students' critical thinking was developed as they gave each other's critical and constructive comments (Valdebenito and Chen, 2019 ; Zou and Xie, 2019 ; Girgin and Cabaroglu, 2021 ). In addition, students completed tasks in small groups which promoted the development of communication and collaboration skills during discussions with each other (Amir et al., 2011 ; García-Sánchez and Burbules, 2016 ; Lai, 2017 ; Mohamadi Zenouzagh, 2018 ; Hosseinpour et al., 2019 ; Zou and Xie, 2019 ; Girgin and Cabaroglu, 2021 ). The process of students voicing digital content promoted the development of speaking skills (Huh and Lee, 2020 ). In the process of creating digital works, digital literacy was developed (García-Sánchez and Burbules, 2016 ; Valdebenito and Chen, 2019 ). Chen et al. ( 2021 ) pointed out that learners learn contextually in an immersive learning environment, and solving real problems through virtual reality technology improved learners' vocabulary as well as promoted their problem-solving skills.
As shown in Table 3 , in reviewed studies, language learning activities based on creative works consisted of two main categories: creating digital stories or videos. The main models for this type of learning activity were as follows: students communicated in groups about how to create a digital story or video, then collected and processed relevant information, after that created a digital story, and finally shared content and communicated with each other about it.
Creative work-based language learning activities.
Thang et al. ( ) | Creative tools: Photo Story3 Social tools: Blog | Create digital stories and share | Writing Speaking | Communication Creativity and innovation Collaboration ICT literacy |
Sevilla-Pavón and Nicolaou ( ) | Creative tools: iMovie, Inspiration Collaboration tools: Google Docs, Google Drive, Facebook, WhatsApp Presentation tools: PowerPoint, Prezi Social tools: Google+ Community, Google+ Forum | Create digital stories and share | Speaking Listening Reading Writing Vocabulary | Communication Collaboration Creativity and innovation Critical thinking Problem solving Digital literacy Social and cross-cultural interaction |
Kulsiri ( ) | Creative tools: Windows Movie Maker | Creative video | Speaking Reading Writing Vocabulary | Creativity and innovation Collaboration Problem-solving |
Yalçin and Öztürk ( ) | Learning management system: Google-classroom | Rewrite story endings, create digital stories and share | Writing | Communication Collaboration Creativity and innovation |
Chiang ( ) | Creative tools: Story Bird | Create digital stories and share | Writing | Digital literacy |
Yang et al. ( ) | Creative tools: Audacity Collaboration tools: Google Drive Presentation tools: Prezi | Create digital stories and share | Speaking | Creativity and innovation |
Mirza ( ) | Social tools: YouTube Presentation tools: PowerPoint | Create digital stories and share | Speaking | Communication |
Huang ( ) | Creative tools: Smartphone camera | Smartphone-based video creation | Speaking | Communication Digital literacy |
The researchers chose different tools to support such learning process, e.g., (1) creating digital stories, i.e., Photo Story3, Windows Movie Maker, or iMovie; (2) creating video scripts in collaboration, i.e., Google Docs or Google Drive; (3) presenting digital stories, i.e., Prezi or PPT; (4) sharing digital stories and communicating, i.e., Google+ forums, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Google Classroom, and classroom management systems.
The researcher noted that digital storytelling promoted language skills, specifically, the process of writing story scripts promoted students' writing and vocabulary skills (Thang et al., 2014 ; Sevilla-Pavón and Nicolaou, 2017 ; Kulsiri, 2018 ; Yalçin and Öztürk, 2019 ; Chiang, 2020 ). It also promoted 21st century skills. Researchers mentioned three approaches for creating digital stories or videos such as free-writing, rewriting the ending of the story, and specifying the theme, and in this open-ended work creation process, students' sense of creativity, problem-solving skills, and digital literacy were developed (Thang et al., 2014 ; Sevilla-Pavón and Nicolaou, 2017 ; Kulsiri, 2018 ; Yalçin and Öztürk, 2019 ; Yang et al., 2022 ). Regarding the creation of digital stories on a specific theme, the researcher asked learners to design a new country, and students needed to understand a range of elements including different countries and cultures, such as national characteristics, language, national policies, climate and life. As a result, students' social and cross-cultural skills were improved. In addition, critical thinking was facilitated as students developed different ideas and perspectives as they evaluated each other's digital stories (Sevilla-Pavón and Nicolaou, 2017 ). Finally, students developed their communication and collaboration skills when working in groups (Thang et al., 2014 ; Sevilla-Pavón and Nicolaou, 2017 ; Kulsiri, 2018 ; Yalçin and Öztürk, 2019 ; Mirza, 2020 ; Huang, 2021 ).
As shown in Table 4 , language learning activities based on multimedia materials involved such tools as (1) web-based learning management system, e.g., EDpuzzle; (2) social tool, e.g., YouTube; and (3) multimedia textbooks. All of them provided multimedia resources for students. There were also (4) collaboration tools, e.g., Padlet and Google docs, which supported learners to share ideas with each other.
Language learning activities based on learning multimedia materials.
Tseng ( ) | Multimedia materials | Watch multimedia materials oral report and reflection on cultural differences | Listening | Social and cross-cultural interaction |
Zou and Xie ( ) | Learning management system: EDpuzzle Collaboration tools: Google Docs, Padlet | Watch video on writing skills, discuss in small groups and complete a report | Writing | Critical thinking Collaboration |
Nikitova et al. ( ) | Multimedia materials: Multimedia textbooks | Study multimedia materials and complete tasks | Speaking Writing Grammar Vocabulary | Collaboration Critical thinking Communication Problem solving |
Aristizábal-Jiménez ( ) | Multimedia materials: video | Watch YouTube videos and analyze, make videos and presentation | Vocabulary Grammar | Critical thinking |
Scholars have designed a variety of language learning activities based on multimedia materials, but the topics and learning tasks of the multimedia materials involved in these studies differed. For example, Tseng ( 2017 ) asked learners to watch a video on the topic of cultural differences, and then students gave oral presentations and reflections to present their views on cultural differences. Zou and Xie ( 2019 ) asked students to watch a video on EDpuzzle, then to discuss in groups, negotiate and compare answers, to share their output to the Padlet platform, and finally submit their reports in Google docs. Nikitova et al. ( 2020 ) asked students to watch videos from multimedia textbooks with different English contexts and then simulated learners' role play activities. Aristizábal-Jiménez ( 2020 ) asked learners to watch YouTube videos, analyze the structure and content of video content, and then create posters to present and share their ideas.
The researcher noted that language learning activities based on multimedia materials promoted learners' language skills and 21st century skills. Specifically, learners' listening skills were promoted after watching the videos (Tseng, 2017 ). Culturally relevant content in videos and culture-based communication among peers promoted students' social and cross-cultural interaction skills (Tseng, 2017 ). Learners actively used dictionaries and discussed grammar while completing tasks to make the information easier to understand, which also promoted students' vocabulary and grammar skills (Aristizábal-Jiménez, 2020 ). In addition, working in groups to complete tasks promoted speaking, writing, grammar, and vocabulary skills. This was also beneficial to develop students' problem solving, collaboration, critical thinking, and communication skills (Aristizábal-Jiménez, 2020 ; Nikitova et al., 2020 ).
As shown in Table 5 , the researchers designed online communication-based language learning activities. Most of them were cross-cultural communication activities to support cross-cultural communication between students from different cultural backgrounds. In terms of technology, the researchers mainly used social tools to support textual or video communication, e.g., Facebook, Skype, and WhatsApp. In addition, researchers have utilized learning management systems to support students to view learning resources uploaded by teachers.
Language learning activities based on online communication.
Calogerakou and Vlachos ( ) | Multimedia materials: Film Social tools: Blog | Students from different cultural backgrounds watch films with culturally relevant backgrounds and communicate | Writing | Social and cross-cultural interaction Media literacy |
Chen and Yang ( ) | Social tools: ePals, iEARN, Skype | Students from different cultural backgrounds share culturally specific folklore stories, make videos, and perform puppet shows | Writing Vocabulary | Social and cross-cultural interaction Communication Collaboration |
Lewis and Schneider ( ) | Social tools: Skype | Students from different cultural backgrounds discuss cultural topics online | Speaking Grammar | Social and cross-cultural interaction Communication |
Chen and Yang ( ) | Learning management system: Moodle Social tools: Wiki | Students from different cultural backgrounds discuss movies with culturally diverse content online | Speaking Reading Writing Vocabulary | Social and cross-cultural interaction |
Özdemir ( ) | Social tools: Facebook, YouTube | Watch YouTube videos and discuss online based on cross-cultural questions prepared by the instructor | Writing Listening | Social and cross-cultural interaction |
Sevy-Biloon and Chroman ( ) | Social tools: Facebook, Skype, WhatsApp, Facetime | Students from different cultural backgrounds discuss cultural topics online | Speaking | Communication Social and cross-cultural interaction |
Jung et al. ( ) | Social tools: Live On | Students from different cultural backgrounds discuss cultural topics online | Grammar Vocabulary Speaking | Social and cross-cultural interaction |
Hirotani and Fujii ( ) | Social tools: Facebook | Students from different cultural backgrounds exchange proverbs online, write reflection journals and perform skits reflecting on cultural differences | Speaking Grammar | Communication Social and cross-cultural interaction |
Jamalai and Krish ( ) | Social tools: online forum (not specific) | Online topic discussion | Grammar Vocabulary Speaking | Critical thinking Digital literacy |
The design of cross-cultural communication activities followed the same pattern—exposure to cross-cultural knowledge, reflection on cross-cultural differences, and cross-cultural exchange. For example, Calogerakou and Vlachos ( 2011 ) had students from two countries to watch movies and compare culture presented in movies with their own culture. Then students had to post comments on a blog and discuss their ideas. Chen and Yang ( 2016 ) asked students to share culturally specific folklore stories with their partners and to make videos of the stories to send to their partners. In addition, students were asked to perform a puppet show via videoconference. All of these were for students to learn about cultural similarities and differences. Chen and Yang ( 2014 ) designed a discussion activity based on cultural themes; for example, students discussed movies that involved culturally different content, and then students shared their opinions on Wiki. Lewis and Schneider ( 2015 ) asked learners to interact with native Spanish-speaking students and discuss cultural topics such as “local living conditions” and “how to celebrate holidays.” Learners were then asked to write a mini-biography or travel brochure for their study partner to demonstrate the cultural knowledge they gained during the exchange. Özdemir ( 2017 ) asked students to watch YouTube videos and discuss them based on cross-cultural questions prepared by the teacher. Sevy-Biloon and Chroman ( 2019 ) designed an intercultural exchange program in which students from Ecuador and the United States were randomly paired and then engaged in a cultural exchange based on the theme of the language course. Jung et al. ( 2019 ) asked students from different cultural backgrounds to discuss cultural topics, including “happiness factors, family, and food,” and finally, students reflected on the discussion, exchanged proverbs with each other, and then presented cultural differences. They reflected on their experiences in a reflective journal. Jamalai and Krish ( 2021 ) designed an online discussion activity, in which learners were required to engage in online discussions based on topics posted by teachers in a forum.
The results showed that students' speaking, vocabulary, writing, reading, and grammar skills improved when communicating through text and speech because students double-checked vocabulary spelling and grammar. Students identified errors they made when communicating using text and speech and corrected them to ensure that others understood their intended meaning (Calogerakou and Vlachos, 2011 ; Chen and Yang, 2014 , 2016 ; Lewis and Schneider, 2015 ; Özdemir, 2017 ; Hirotani and Fujii, 2019 ; Jung et al., 2019 ; Sevy-Biloon and Chroman, 2019 ; Jamalai and Krish, 2021 ). In addition, students' listening skills improved after watching YouTube videos (Özdemir, 2017 ).
At the same time, students' communication process using social tools developed the ability to use writing software, electronic dictionaries, and collect information on the Internet, and therefore media literacy was improved (Calogerakou and Vlachos, 2011 ). All studies point to the development of cultural interaction skills after students interacted and exchanged different cultural perspectives with partners (Calogerakou and Vlachos, 2011 ; Chen and Yang, 2014 , 2016 ; Lewis and Schneider, 2015 ; Özdemir, 2017 ; Hirotani and Fujii, 2019 ; Jung et al., 2019 ; Sevy-Biloon and Chroman, 2019 ). Communication (Chen and Yang, 2014 ; Lewis and Schneider, 2015 ; Hirotani and Fujii, 2019 ) and collaboration skills were also developed (Chen and Yang, 2014 ) in reviewed studies.
This review also analyzed learning activities that were used by those few studies that focused on non-English languages. This review found that most learning activities designed in these studies were online cross-cultural communicative activities. This shows that the primary goal of these learning projects was to develop students' foreign language and intercultural communication skills.
Based on the findings of the reviewed literature, the five types of language learning activities supported by technology had a positive impact on students' language skills as well as their 21st century skills development. Moreover, this review found that these learning activities followed similar pattern. The common pattern for language learning activities based on culture-related communication was exposure to cross-cultural knowledge, reflection on cross-cultural differences, and cross-cultural exchange. The common pattern of language learning activities for creative works was as follows: students communicated in groups about how to create a work (such as digital story or video), then collected and processed relevant information, created a work, and then shared content and communicated with each other about it. These patterns could provide suggestions for researchers and teachers to design similar instructional activities that target development of language skills and 21st century skills in the future.
Second, this review found that researchers designed similar instructional activities, but the research focus was different. For example, in the adaptive language learning activities on learning platforms, researchers focused on the development of students' speaking skills and lacked attention to reading skills. And in the collaborative task-based language learning activities, researchers have focused more on writing and vocabulary skills, collaboration, and communication skills, and lacked attention to listening skills. In creative writing-based language learning activities, researchers focused more on speaking and writing skills as well as creative and communication skills.
The most common study samples were small ones with participants range from 11 to 30 ( n = 11) and medium samples with range between 61 and 90 ( n = 8) participants. Research durations were mostly between 3 and 6 months ( n = 10). Small sample size was acknowledged as a limitation in some studies (Hirotani and Fujii, 2019 ; Zou and Xie, 2019 ). The possible reason for this is that most of the studies were based on small classroom settings. In the reviewed studies, the most common academic level of participants was undergraduate level. There were 12 studies that did not specify research duration. Regarding this finding, there is a lack of attention in previous retrospective studies (Guan, 2014 ; Duman et al., 2015 ; Persson and Nouri, 2018 ).
Most of the studies collected both quantitative and qualitative data, which can help researchers to draw conclusions from different perspectives. Quantitative data included tests, scales, and rubrics; qualitative data included student's work, open-ended questions, student feedback, interviews, student chat transcripts, student reflections, teacher journals, and observations. One of the most common forms of quantitative data collection is a test ( n = 15), involving student language tests (tests of English speaking and listening) and tests of 21st century skills (critical thinking and creative thinking). The most common method of qualitative data collection was interview ( n = 13), where the researcher usually designed an interview outline and then asked learners questions to understand their learning experiences, attitudes, motivations, and challenges in the learning process. In addition, researchers have extensively used questionnaires ( n = 17), including both closed-ended and open-ended questions, to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. For example, the researchers used questionnaires to investigate learners' perceptions of technology-supported language learning, including effectiveness, usefulness, and students' perceptions of developing intercultural communicative competence and language skills through online discussions (Jung et al., 2019 ).
Based on the above findings, the recommendations of the present study for researchers and teachers are as follow. First, researchers could consider studies with longer time spans and collect data from bigger number of participants to investigate students' development over time and have generalizable conclusions. Second, researchers can collect multiple types of data, focus on students' learning processes and outcomes, and then interpret findings from different perspectives.
There are a variety of research designs for reviewed studies on technology-supported language learning and 21st century skills. The most common are quasi-experimental studies. Such studies are characterized by using pre- and post-tests to measure changes in participants' language skills, 21st century skills and other learning outcomes and attitudes before and after participation in learning activities. In quasi-experimental studies, participants are not randomly assigned to an experimental or control group (Persson and Nouri, 2018 ; Huang, 2021 ). These findings are consistent with other reviews on technology-supported language learning (Persson and Nouri, 2018 ). The present study suggests that educators and researchers can use the three research methods mentioned above to validate their studies in future.
In this section, the study discusses findings from reviewed studies and recommendations for educators and researchers. In reviewed studies, in addition to finding that technology-supported learning activities promoted learners' language skills and 21st century skills, researchers also found that these technologies led to positive learning experiences, which resulted in better learning outcomes. For example, learning through multimedia textbooks, collaborative blog-based writing activities, smartphone-based video filming activities and language learning projects based on intercultural exchange all increased students' motivation (Amir et al., 2011 ; García-Sánchez and Burbules, 2016 ; Sevy-Biloon and Chroman, 2019 ; Aristizábal-Jiménez, 2020 ; Huang, 2021 ). For example, Hosseinpour et al. ( 2019 ) noted that through collaborative writing activities, learners' motivation and self-confidence levels were increased. Mirza ( 2020 ) argued that through digital storytelling-based learning activities, students gained more confidence. Researchers have also looked at the different learning performance of students due to individual differences in abilities or their characteristics. Yang et al. ( 2014 ) found that in terms of writing, significant differences were found between “basic” and “low-intermediate” learners as a result of the difference in ability. Yalçin and Öztürk ( 2019 ) found that girls had a more negative attitude toward technology than boys.
While many studies pointed to positive student attitudes toward technology-supported learning activities (Arnó-Macià and Rueda-Ramos, 2011 ; Girgin and Cabaroglu, 2021 ), several studies highlighted challenges that students faced when using technology for learning. Challenges from technology, with some learners finding it difficult to use in learning activities or being confused about the layout of mobile applications were mentioned. Students also noted problems with device incompatibility and poor network quality and speed when using technology. Self-competence challenges, with learners noting that learning tasks were difficult for them, for example, insufficient time to complete learning tasks, lack of research skills, or language skills needed to complete tasks, were reported. Difficulties in finding an interesting topic and choosing the right tools to create their work were also reported in reviewed studies. Challenges of collaborating with others, with some learners noting that they encounter uncoordinated teamwork, uneven distribution of work and unequal student contributions in collaborative tasks, were mentioned by scholars. Self-attitudes, as noted by learners who felt anxious about video chatting when they were communicating remotely, as well as fear of having their writing errors discovered by their partners when communicating in text, were reported in reviewed studies.
Based on the above findings, the present study recommends to educators and researchers, in addition to focusing on the impact of technology-supported learning activities on learners' language skills and 21st century skills, it is also important to focus on students' perceptions of technology, motivation, engagement, and confidence. This is because positive learning experiences can lead to better learning outcomes (Sevy-Biloon and Chroman, 2019 ; An et al., 2021 ). Regarding the technological challenges that students encounter in the learning process, it is recommended that they be addressed through advance trainings and through providing students with appropriate technological services during learning activities. Self-competence challenges can be addressed by designing collaborative tasks in which students with higher levels of competence can help students with lower levels of competence to complete the task. Regarding the challenges in collaborative activities, it is recommended that teachers and researchers design learning activities with clear rules for collaborative division of labor and rules regarding how learning performance of every learner will be evaluated. With regard to alleviating negative student attitudes, it is recommended that teachers design diverse teaching strategies and scaffolds to give students assistance during learning activities.
This study reviewed articles on technology-supported language learning and 21st century skills published from 2011 to 2022 (February) in terms of (a) research focus; (b) theoretical foundations; (c) technology; (d) learning activities; (e) methodology and (f) findings. The results indicate that research on technology-supported language learning and 21st century skills have shown an upward trend in the overall research in the covered time period, with most of the research focusing on English and the majority of participants in these studies majored in education.
Secondly, in terms of research focus, most of the researchers focused on learners' speaking skills (27.40%), followed by writing (26.03%) and vocabulary skills (17.81%). In terms of 21st century skills, most researchers focused on communication (20.83%), collaboration (20.83%), critical thinking (13.89%), and social and cross-cultural interaction skills (13.89%). In terms of theoretical foundations, social constructivist learning theory was most often adopted by researchers. In terms of technology, tools that support learners' creativity and socialization are often utilized by researchers, e.g., Facebook or Google Docs. In terms of learning activities, researchers have designed the following five types of learning activities to support learners' language learning and 21st century skills: (1) collaborative task-based language learning activities; (2) language learning activities based on online communication; (3) creative work-based language learning activities (4) adaptive language learning activities based on learning platforms; and (5) language learning activities based on multimedia learning materials. The results of reviewed studies indicate that these learning activities supported by technology are effective in promoting the development of learners' different language skills and 21st century skills. Finally, in terms of methodology, most of the studies had a sample of 11–30, the most common study period was 3–6 months, the data collection method often used by researchers was questionnaires, the most common method to collect quantitative data was tests, and the most common method to collect qualitative data was interviews.
In contrast to traditional paper and pencil-based learning, technologies used by researchers in reviewed studies allowed learners to improve language learning outcomes and 21st century skills through individual and collaborative learning activities. Some reported advantages are learning with technologies without the constraints of time and space, technologies enable personalized learning, technologies create authentic learning environments that provides adaptive learning content, helps create multimedia content actively, allows social interaction such as sharing, giving or receiving feedback, and reflecting on learning more efficiently.
Based on the above findings, recommendations for researchers and educators in this study include: (1) In terms of language skills, in addition to focusing on output skills, input skills (reading, listening) also deserve attention from researchers. In terms of 21st century skills, learners' problem-solving skills and career and life skills also need more attention from researchers in the future; (2) Advanced technology training for learners to familiarize them with technology and its effective usage as well as teachers need to check in advance for possible technology problems, such as network problems. These suggestions can help teachers address the technological barriers that learners encounter in the learning process; (3) The use of various theoretical approaches, such as instructional design-related theories and language learning-related theories, is important for the rational design of instructional activities that promote learners' language and 21st century skills; (4) Researchers and educators can follow the general model of conducting the five types of instructional activities summarized above to design instructional activities. In addition, it is recommended that researchers and educators use variety of technologies and design different instructional activities to promote learners' language and 21st century skills. It is also important to be aware of the challenges that students may encounter in terms of technology, learning activity tasks, peer collaboration and self-attitudes when implementing learning activities; (5) Teachers and educators could involve more participants and consider longer time spans in future studies to focus on more learners' development and to collect diverse quantitative and qualitative data to explain students' learning processes and outcomes.
There are few limitations to this study. Articles reviewed in this study were sourced from PRIMO and Web of Science databases, and some conference papers, books and dissertations were excluded. For this reason, this study reviewed smaller number of articles. Future studies may consider this limitation and address it by including more relevant sources.
Author contributions.
RS and XW contributed to the conception, designed the work, collected the data, analyzed, and interpreted data. XW drafted the work and RS substantively revised it. RS was responsible for correspondence. All authors approved the submitted version and agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to the accuracy the work.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
1 Articles reviewed in this study.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.897689/full#supplementary-material
FIP indicates International Pharmaceutical Federation.
eAppendix. Description of Methods
Data Sharing Statement
Sign up for emails based on your interests, select your interests.
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Others also liked.
Ashraf AR , Mackey TK , Schmidt J, et al. Safety and Risk Assessment of No-Prescription Online Semaglutide Purchases. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(8):e2428280. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.28280
© 2024
The popularity of branded semaglutide is surging, with widespread media coverage, viral social media exposure, and celebrity endorsements. 1 Although Wegovy (Novo Nordisk) is approved for long-term weight management, Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) (only approved for type 2 diabetes) is often used off-label for this purpose. Global regulatory agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency, and World Health Organization (WHO), have warned about fake versions driven by patient demand, high cost, and shortages. Illegal online pharmacies, which operate without valid licenses and sell medicines like semaglutide without prescription, represent a consumer risk for ineffective and dangerous products.
In this qualitative study, we conducted risk assessment of semaglutide online sourcing ( Figure and eAppendix in Supplement 1 ). We followed the SRQR reporting guideline.
First, we conducted structured searches on Google and Bing to catalog websites advertising semaglutide without a prescription in July 2023. Websites meeting inclusion criteria were selected for a product test buy protocol. 2 Two 0.25-mg per dose prefilled pens or equivalent semaglutide injection vials were ordered from each website. Upon product receipt, authors (A.R.A., and A.F.) used the International Pharmaceutical Federation’s (FIP) checklist for visual inspection to assess potential counterfeiting or falsification risks, compared with genuine Ozempic brand 1-mg semaglutide solution for injection in a prefilled pen. 3 Products were then tested for quality, including sterility and microbiological contamination, according to European Pharmacopoeia and US Pharmacopeia guidelines. Quantification of active ingredients was performed using liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Test purchases and analytical testing were performed August from 2023 to March 2024.
Search engine monitoring generated 1080 hyperlinks, with 317 (29.35%) for online pharmacies. Nearly one-half (134 sites [42.27%]) belonged to illegal pharmacy operations; 763 links were websites not offering products for sale, including 615 news and informational websites and 148 telemedicine websites requiring consultation to obtain prescription before purchase.
Six online vendors classified as not recommended or rogue by LegitScript and/or National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and offering parenteral semaglutide products were included in test buys. Three websites offered prefilled 0.25-mg per dose semaglutide injection pens, and 3 sold vials of lyophilized semaglutide to be reconstituted to solution for injection (1-3 mg). All vendors referred to weight loss and obesity on their product page. Prices for the smallest dose and quantity ranged from US $113 to $360 (mean [SD], US $218.5 [$93.6]) ( Table ).
Test purchases were confirmed via email and WhatsApp. Of 6 products purchased, only 3 were received. Three vendors selling Ozempic injections engaged in nondelivery scams requesting extra payments (range, US $650-$1200) to purportedly clear customs, confirmed as fraudulent by customs agencies. Although genuine Ozempic scored the full 22 points on the FIP checklist, test purchased products scored 8 or 9 with clear discrepancies in regulatory registration information, accurate labeling, and evidence products were likely unregistered or unlicensed.
Upon quality testing, one sample had elevated presence of endotoxin (8.95 EU/mg) indicating possible contamination, although no viable microorganisms were detected. LC-MS revealed the presence of semaglutide in all samples, but with considerably lower purity levels (7%-14% vs advertised 99%). The measured semaglutide content substantially exceeded the labeled amount in each sample by 29% to 39%, meaning that users could receive up to 39% more semaglutide per injection. These risk factors indicate likely falsification that does not meet legitimate product quality standards.
This qualitative study found that semaglutide products are actively being sold without prescription by illegal online pharmacies, with vendors shipping unregistered and falsified products. Two websites evaluated were sent FDA warning letters for unlawful sale of unapproved and misbranded semaglutide. 4 , 5 US poison centers have reported a 1500% increase in calls related to semaglutide, highlighting the need for enhanced pharmacovigilance including for online sourcing harms. 6 Study limitations include limited sample of products tested due to nondelivery scams. Furthermore, although tested products represent some accessible semaglutide products sold online, higher priced offerings were excluded, limiting generalizability of the findings.
Accepted for Publication: June 21, 2024.
Published: August 2, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.28280
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2024 Ashraf AR et al. JAMA Network Open .
Corresponding Author: Tim K. Mackey, MAS, PhD, Global Health Program, Department of Anthropology, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, MC 0505, La Jolla, CA 92093 ( [email protected] ).
Author Contributions: Dr Ashraf had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Ashraf, Mackey, Vida, Li, Fittler.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: Ashraf, Mackey, Kulcsár, Vida, Fittler.
Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Ashraf, Mackey, Schmidt, Kulcsár, Li, Fittler.
Statistical analysis: Ashraf, Kulcsár, Li.
Obtained funding: Mackey, Fittler.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Ashraf, Mackey, Vida, Li.
Supervision: Mackey, Fittler.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Mr Schmidt reported receiving grant TKP2021-EGA-17 from the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding/Support: The research was supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (grant NKFI-ID 143684).
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2 .
Additional Contributions: The research was performed in collaboration with Mass Spectrometry Core Facility at the Szentágothai Research Centre of the University of Pécs.
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Advances in research on bacterial oxidation of mn(ii): a visualized bibliometric analysis based on citespace.
2. materials and methods, 2.1. data source and retrieval strategy, 2.2. data analysis and visualization, 3.1. trend analysis of annual publications, 3.2. analysis of countries and institutions, 3.3. analysis of disciplinary classifications, 3.4. analysis of authors of co-occurrence and co-citation, 3.5. analysis of journal citations, 3.6. analysis of co-cited references, 3.7. analysis of temporal and burst of keywords, 3.8. analysis of keyword clusters, 4. discussion, 4.1. research hotspots and trends, 4.1.1. species and ecological distribution, 4.1.2. factors influencing bacterial mn(ii) oxidation, 4.1.3. mechanisms of mn(ii) oxidation in bacteria, 4.1.4. environmental applications, 4.2. outlook, 5. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
Rank | Country | Count | Rank | Country | Centrality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | China | 197 | 1 | USA | 0.38 |
2 | USA | 128 | 2 | China | 0.34 |
3 | Japan | 33 | 3 | Germany | 0.15 |
4 | Germany | 20 | 4 | Netherlands | 0.14 |
5 | India | 18 | 5 | England | 0.09 |
6 | Canada | 11 | 6 | Japan | 0.04 |
7 | England | 10 | 7 | South Korea | 0.04 |
8 | France | 9 | 8 | Pakistan | 0.04 |
9 | Australia | 8 | 9 | Mexico | 0.04 |
10 | South Korea | 9 | 10 | France | 0.03 |
Rank | Count | Centrality | Institution | Country |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 41 | 0.19 | Chinese Academy of Science | China |
2 | 28 | 0.06 | Harbin Institute of Technology | China |
3 | 27 | 0.23 | Oregon Health and Science University | USA |
4 | 20 | 0.07 | Huazhong Agricultural University | China |
5 | 14 | 0.00 | University of Chinese Academy of Sciences | China |
6 | 12 | 0.00 | Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology | China |
7 | 9 | 0.05 | Hiroshima University | Japan |
8 | 8 | 0.04 | Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution | USA |
9 | 8 | 0.03 | Smithsonian Institution | USA |
10 | 8 | 0.00 | Beijing University of Technology | China |
Rank | Category | Count | Rank | Category | Centrality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Environmental Sciences & Ecology | 151 | 1 | Environmental Sciences & Ecology | 0.41 |
2 | Environmental Sciences | 122 | 2 | Chemistry | 0.41 |
3 | Engineering | 87 | 3 | Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology | 0.39 |
4 | Microbiology | 73 | 4 | Biochemistry & Molecular Biology | 0.34 |
5 | Engineering, Environmental | 72 | 5 | Environmental Sciences | 0.32 |
6 | Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology | 52 | 6 | Engineering | 0.18 |
7 | Water Resources | 39 | 7 | Chemistry | 0.18 |
8 | Geology | 32 | 8 | Microbiology | 0.15 |
9 | Geosciences | 28 | 9 | Agriculture | 0.14 |
10 | Biochemistry & Molecular Biology | 25 | 10 | Toxicology | 0.09 |
Rank | Top Ten Productive Author | Count | Rank | Top Ten Co-Cited Author | Citation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Tebo BM | 22 | 1 | Tebo BM | 212 |
2 | Bai YH | 13 | 2 | Francis CA | 104 |
3 | Qu JH | 12 | 3 | Learman DR | 94 |
4 | Zhang J | 10 | 4 | Villalobos M | 89 |
5 | Pan XL | 9 | 5 | Geszvain K | 87 |
6 | Hansel CM | 8 | 6 | Dick GJ | 80 |
7 | Liu F | 8 | 7 | Webb SM | 79 |
8 | He ZF | 7 | 8 | Miyata N | 74 |
9 | Santelli CM | 7 | 9 | Anderson CR | 71 |
10 | Wei Z | 7 | 10 | Brouwers GJ | 69 |
Rank | Citation | Cited Journal | IF | JCR | Country |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 301 | Applied and Environmental Microbiology | 4.32 | Q2 | USA |
2 | 232 | Environmental Science & Technology | 11.09 | Q1 | USA |
3 | 223 | Water Research | 12.75 | Q1 | England |
4 | 214 | Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta | 4.97 | Q1 | USA |
5 | 205 | Geomicrobiology Journal | 2.30 | Q3 | USA |
6 | 188 | Journal of Bacteriology | 3.06 | Q3 | USA |
7 | 180 | Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America | 10.71 | Q1 | USA |
8 | 168 | Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences | 14.29 | Q1 | USA |
9 | 158 | Chemosphere | 8.80 | Q1 | England |
10 | 153 | PLoS One | 3.64 | Q2 | USA |
Title | Authors | Year | Citation Frequency |
---|---|---|---|
Synergistic effects of biogenic manganese oxide and Mn(II)-oxidizing bacterium Pseudomonas putida strain MnB1 on the degradation of 17 α-ethinylestradiol | Tran TN et al. [ ] | 2018 | 30 |
A novel manganese oxidizing bacterium-Aeromonas hydrophila strain DS02: Mn(II) oxidization and biogenic Mn oxides generation | Zhang Y et al. [ ] | 2019 | 29 |
Elimination of Manganese(II,III) Oxidation in Pseudomonas Putida GB-1 by a Double Knockout of Two Putative Multicopper Oxidase Genes | Geszvain K et al. [ ] | 2013 | 27 |
Mn(II, III) oxidation and MnO mineralization by an expressed bacterial multicopper oxidase | Butterfield CN et al. [ ] | 2013 | 23 |
Diverse manganese(II)-oxidizing bacteria are prevalent in drinking water systems | Marcus DN et al. [ ] | 2017 | 22 |
Effective start-up biofiltration method for Fe, Mn, and ammonia removal and bacterial community analysis | Cai YN et al. [ ] | 2015 | 22 |
Extracellular haem peroxidases mediate Mn(II) oxidation in a marine Roseobacter bacterium via superoxide production | Andeer PF et al. [ ] | 2015 | 21 |
CotA, a multicopper oxidase from Bacillus pumilus WH4, exhibits manganese-oxidase activity | Su JM et al. [ ] | 2013 | 21 |
Formation of manganese oxides by bacterially generated superoxide | Learman DR et al. [ ] | 2011 | 20 |
Identification of a third Mn(II) oxidase enzyme in Pseudomonas putida GB-1 | Geszvain K et al. [ ] | 2016 | 20 |
Rank | Keyword | Frequency | Centrality |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Mn(II) oxidation | 104 | 0.08 |
2 | oxidation | 92 | 0.16 |
3 | iron | 81 | 0.19 |
4 | identification | 65 | 0.10 |
5 | removal | 62 | 0.09 |
6 | multicopper oxidase | 61 | 0.04 |
7 | water | 42 | 0.06 |
8 | oxides | 42 | 0.07 |
9 | spores | 38 | 0.07 |
10 | mechanisms | 38 | 0.06 |
11 | manganese oxidation | 38 | 0.05 |
12 | biogenic manganese oxides | 34 | 0.09 |
13 | microbial community | 32 | 0.11 |
14 | bacteria | 32 | 0.08 |
15 | adsorption | 32 | 0.13 |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Mo, W.; Wang, H.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Luo, Y.; He, M.; Cheng, S.; Mei, H.; He, J.; et al. Advances in Research on Bacterial Oxidation of Mn(II): A Visualized Bibliometric Analysis Based on CiteSpace. Microorganisms 2024 , 12 , 1611. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12081611
Mo W, Wang H, Wang J, Wang Y, Liu Y, Luo Y, He M, Cheng S, Mei H, He J, et al. Advances in Research on Bacterial Oxidation of Mn(II): A Visualized Bibliometric Analysis Based on CiteSpace. Microorganisms . 2024; 12(8):1611. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12081611
Mo, Wentao, Hang Wang, Jianghan Wang, Yue Wang, Yunfei Liu, Yi Luo, Minghui He, Shuang Cheng, Huiting Mei, Jin He, and et al. 2024. "Advances in Research on Bacterial Oxidation of Mn(II): A Visualized Bibliometric Analysis Based on CiteSpace" Microorganisms 12, no. 8: 1611. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12081611
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
COMMENTS
A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers ... As inspection of the figures indicates, any such effect is inconsistent and small. 4.1.2. Test modality . ... On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research. 1990; 6 (2):93-124. doi: 10.1177/026765839000600201.
Language acquisition refers to the process by which individuals learn and develop their native or second language. It involves the acquisition of grammar, vocabulary, and communication skills through exposure, interaction, and cognitive development. This process typically occurs in childhood but can continue throughout life.
The study of language learning focused on the individual might have had its origin in the tradition of generative linguistics 2,3, according to which linguistics as a science should study the ...
The past 20 years have seen research on language acquisition in the cognitive sciences grow immensely. The current paper offers a fairly extensive review of this literature, arguing that new cognitive theories and empirical data are perfectly consistent with core predictions a behavior analytic approach makes about language development. The review focuses on important examples of productive ...
Abstract. This paper reviews three main theoretical perspectives on language learning and acquisition in an attempt to elucidate how people acquire their first language (L1) and learn their second language (L2). Behaviorist, Innatist and Interactionist offer different perspectives on language learning and acquisition which influence the ...
3. Neural substrates of language acquisition. 3.1. Neural substrates of phonetic learning. Language acquisition research especially in infancy focuses mostly on phonetic perception. Phonetic perception at infancy refers to infants' perceiving vowels and consonant terms that build up a word.
Recent neuropsychological and brain imaging work indicates that language acquisition involves ... Further research will continue to explore which aspects of infants' language-processing skills are ...
The parsing process is therefore an essential component of the language comprehension device, because it allows children to assemble strings of elements in such a way as to compute crucial, and even novel, relational conceptions of the world. Adults are quite adept at parsing sentences to determine relational meaning.
Abstract. Language acquisition is one of the most fundamental human traits, and it is obviously the brain that undergoes the developmental changes. During the years of language acquisition, the brain not only stores linguistic information but also adapts to the grammatical regularities of language. Recent advances in functional neuroimaging ...
The research published in Language Acquisition makes a clear contribution to linguistic theory by increasing our understanding of how language is acquired. The journal focuses on the acquisition of syntax, semantics, phonology, and morphology, and considers theoretical, experimental, and computational perspectives. ...
Abstract. A comprehensive theory of child language acquisition requires an evidential base that is representative of the typological diversity present in the world's 7000 or so languages. However, languages are dying at an alarming rate, and the next 50 years represents the last chance we have to document acquisition in many of them.
2.1 Second Language Acquisition Research dur ing the 1950s and 1960s. As stated above, the area of SLA did not initiate as a sepa rate area of study with its distinctiveness but as an. addition to ...
t. e. Language acquisition is the process by which humans acquire the capacity to perceive and comprehend language. In other words, it is how human beings gain the ability to be aware of language, to understand it, and to produce and use words and sentences to communicate. Language acquisition involves structures, rules, and representation.
Since individual differences (for example, the age of acquisition of a particular word/structure) are not always included as a factor/controlled for, Mkrtychian and colleagues (contribution 9) focused on both the behavioral and neural (EEG) aspects of the acquisition and processing of concrete and abstract words while tightly controlling for ...
Specifically, caregivers' language is often fine-tuned to children's current linguistic knowledge and vocabulary, providing an optimal level of complexity to support language learning. In their new research, Leung and colleagues add to the body of knowledge involving how caregivers foster children's language acquisition.
1.1. Factors impacting on second language learning and their connection to the learning process. Scientific evidence clearly shows the heterogeneity of factors that condition the acquisition of a second language and its relationship with the learning and teaching process (Atkinson et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Dewaele and Dewaele, 2018; Saville-Troike and Barto, 2016).
Research on language acquisition indicates that. a. the right hemisphere of the brain is biased for language processing. b. sing language can be learned equally well at any age. c. language learning is optimal after brain lateralization has occurred. d. childhood is a sensitive period for language acquisition.
In second language acquisition research, the critical period hypothesis (cph) holds that the function between learners' age and their susceptibility to second language input is non-linear. This paper revisits the indistinctness found in the literature with regard to this hypothesis's scope and predictions. Even when its scope is clearly delineated and its predictions are spelt out, however ...
The most ambitious attempts to synthesize large amounts of data on language development into a cohesive framework are Brown (1973), Pinker (1984), and Slobin (1985b). Clark (1993) reviews the acquisition of words. Locke (1993) covers the earliest stages of acquisition, with a focus on speech input and output.
Acceptance Date: 06/05/2021. Abstract. This paper aims to discuss old and contemporary perspectives in understanding language acq uisition taking into. account the n eural th eory of languag e ...
Language acquisition is based on the neuro-psychological processes (Maslo, 2007: 41). Language acquistion is opposed to learning and is a subconscious process similar to that by which children acquire their first language (Kramina, 2000: 27). Hence, language acquisition is an integral part of the unity of all language (Robbins, 2007: 49).
Research on language acquisition indicates that. childhood is a sensitive period for language acquisition. Compared with referential children, toddlers who use an expressive style. produce many more social formulas and pronouns. Miranda says "more apple." This two-word utterance is an example of.
Research indicates that the frequency and quality of interactions between caregivers and young children directly correlate with the children's language acquisition and literacy skills. ... Recent findings from a 2024 study published in Early Childhood Research Quarterly revealed that when caregivers used culturally relevant materials and ...
According to Figure 8 (and Appendix 1 ), researchers pointed out that technology-supported language learning can also promote 21st century skills. These skills relate to the following three categories: 4C (communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity), digital literacy, and career and life skills.
In addition, the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) is a meaningful entrepreneurial context that cannot be ignored in ambidextrous learning. However, existing EE literature mainly focuses on macro-level research, such as the element composition, evolution, development (E. Stam & Van de Ven, 2021; Wurth et al., 2022), and governance of EE, which weakens the connection between new ventures and EEs ...
FIP indicates International Pharmaceutical Federation. Table. Online Vendor Characteristics and Semaglutide Products Offered Online ... FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Warning letter: www.semaspace.com—MARCS-CMS 665848. October 2, 2023. Accessed July 3, 2024. ... Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Manganese (Mn) pollution poses a serious threat to the health of animals, plants, and humans. The microbial-mediated Mn(II) removal method has received widespread attention because of its rapid growth, high efficiency, and economy. Mn(II)-oxidizing bacteria can oxidize toxic soluble Mn(II) into non-toxic Mn(III/IV) oxides, which can further participate in the transformation of other heavy ...
s. rept. 118-207 - departments of labor, health and human services, and education, and related agencies appropriation bill, 2025 118th congress (2023-2024)