Covid-19 Research

Research Article

OCLC Number/Unique Identifier: 9501818045

Transcending Motivation Barriers in Technology Enhanced Language Learning: A Social Inequalities Perspective

General Science    Start Submission

Evamaria Brigitta Kaiser* and Mariya Ivancheva

Dates: Received: 2022-02-12 | Accepted: 2022-03-07 | Published: 2022-03-08
Pages: 227-235


Factors that influence learning are vitally discussed in language learning circles but are rather underexplored in the field of technology-enhanced language learning (hereafter TELL). Considering these factors shall assist with responding to the research question of how technology can enhance language learning by taking into consideration the socio-economic contexts of learners. Through a review of literature across academic fields and seven qualitative interviews with key practitioners in this area from across Europe, we address the issue of the digital divide. We discuss arising challenges for self-expression, self-determination, and autonomy in the social space of language learning due to unequal initial positions of language learners, which co-determine success. Implications for practice and policy include the awareness about these multilayered factors that influence TELL to strive for equality with regards to access to knowledge, learning materials and spaces for learners from different backgrounds.

FullText HTML FullText PDF DOI: 10.37871/jbres1427

Certificate of Publication


© 2022 Kaiser EB, et al. Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0

How to cite this article

Kaiser EB, Ivancheva M. Transcending Motivation Barriers in Technology Enhanced Language Learning: A Social Inequalities Perspective. J Biomed Res Environ Sci. 2022 Mar 08; 3(3): 227-235. doi: 10.37871/jbres1427, Article ID: JBRES1427, Available at:

Subject area(s)


  1. Council of Europe. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Cambridge University Press. 2001.
  2. Walker A, White G. Technology enhanced language learning: connecting theory and practice-Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers. Oxford University Press. 2013.
  3. Lange C, Costley J. Opportunities and lessons from informal and non-formal learning: Applications to online environments. American Journal of Educational Research. 2015;3(10):1330-1336.
  4. Cambourne B, Kiggins J. Reforming how we prepare teachers to teach literacy-Why? How? What? In: Hall K, Cremin T, Comber B, Moll L. editors. Children ́s Literacy, Learning and Culture. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 440-455.
  5. Wilson C, Grizzle A, Tuazon R, Akyempong K, Cheung C. Media and information literacy. Paris: UNESCO. 2011.
  6. Dabbagh N, Kitsantas A. Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 2012;15(1):3-8. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002.
  7. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000;55(1):68-78. doi: 10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68.
  8. Kormos J, Kiddle T. The role of socio-economic factors in motivation to learn English as a foreign language: The case of Chile. System. 2013;41(2), 399-412. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.03.006.
  9. Shin H. The role of social class in language education. Journal of Language, Identity and Education. 2014;13(2):99-103.
  10. Warschauer M. Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday. 2002;7(7). doi: 10.5210/fm.v7i7.967.
  11. Hohlfeld TN, Ritzhaupt AD, Barron AE. Connecting schools, community, and family with ICT: Four-year trends related to school level and SES of public schools in Florida. Computers & Education. 2010;55(1):391-405. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.004.
  12. Feely M. Literacy learning care: Exploring the roles of care in literacy learning with survivors of abuse in Irish industrial schools. 2010;72-90.
  13. Jones A, Issroff K. Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education. 2005;44(4), 395-408. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.004.
  14. Kiddle T. Developing digital language learning materials. In: Tomlinson B. editor. Developing digital language learning materials. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 2013. p. 189-205.
  15. Gan Z. Test-task authenticity: The multiple perspectives. Changing English. 2012;19(2):237-247. doi: 10.1080/1358684X.2012.680765.
  16. Ollivier C. Towards a socio-interactional approach to foster autonomy in language learners and users - draft (pp. 4-40). Presented at the e-lang-Digital literacy for the teaching and learning of languages, Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages. 2017.
  17. Harmer J. The practice of English language teaching. 4th ed. Harlow: Longman ELT.
  18. Mompean AR. The development of meaningful interactions on a blog used for the learning of English as a foreign language. ReCALL. 2010;22(3):376-395. doi: 10.1017/S0958344010000200.
  19. Akyol Z, Garrison DR. The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. 2008;12(3):20. doi: 10.24059/olj.v12i3.72.
  20. Dwyer B. Developing online reading comprehension-changes, challenges and consequences In: Hall K, Kremin T, Comber B, Moll L. editors. Children’s Literacy, Learning and Culture. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 344-358.
  21. Greenhow C, Robelia B. Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, media and technology. 2009;34(2):119-140. doi: 10.1080/17439880902923580.
  22. Puentedura RR. SAMR: A contextualized introduction. Presented at the Alberta Charter Schools Conference, Alberta. 2013.
  23. Kurbaniyazov I. SAMR different. Technology. 2018;116:55-57.
  24. Leonard DC. Read: Learning Theories: A to Z. London: Greenwood. 2002.
  25. Hurst B, Wallace R, Nixon SB. The impact of social interaction on Student learning. 2013;25.
  26. Covey SR. The 7 habits of highly effective people (Miniature edition) (Min edition). Philadelphia: Running press miniature editions; 2000.
  27. Hohlfeld T, Ritzhaupt A, Barron A. Connection schools, community, and family with ICT: Four-year trends related to school level and SES of public schools in Florida. Computers & Education. 2010;55(1):391-405. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.004.
  28. Ryan RM, Kuhl J, Deci EL. Nature and autonomy: an organizational view of social and neurobiological aspects of self-regulation in behavior and development. Dev Psychopathol. 1997 Fall;9(4):701-728. doi: 10.1017/s0954579497001405. PMID: 9449002.
  29. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000;55(1):68-78. doi: 10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68.
  30. Nesbit JC, Winne PH. Tools for learning in an information society. In Children’s Learning in a Digital World: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008. p. 173-195 doi: 10.1002/9780470696682.ch7.
  31. NASP. Social Media and School Crises. 2017.
  32. Hiemstra R. SDL: Why do most instructors still do it wrong? Journal of SDL. 2013;10(1):23-34.
  33. Leonard D. Learning theories A to Z. London: Greenwood publishing group Inc. 2002.
  34. Skeggs B. 2015. The idea of class, a measure of value. In: Holborn M. editor. Contemporary Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2015. p. 4-34.
  35. Vaghely IP, Julien PA. Are opportunities recognized or constructed? An information perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification. Journal of Business Venturing. 2010;25(1):73-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.06.004.
  36. Vertovec S. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2017;30(6):1024-1054. doi: 10.1080/01419870701599465.
  37. Connelly R, Gayle V. An investigation of social class inequalities in general cognitive ability in two British birth cohorts. The British Journal of Sociology. 2019;70(1):90-108. doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12343.
  38. Serpell R. How the study of cognitive growth can benefit from a cultural lens. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2017;12(5):889-899. doi: 10.1177/1745691617704419.
  39. Bourdieu P. Physical space, social space and habitus. Presented at the The Vilhelm Aubert Memorial Lecture. University of Oslo: Department of Sociology; 1996. p. 3-22.
  40. Vandrick S. The role of social class in English language education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. 2014;13(2):85-91. doi: 10.1080/15348458.2014.901819.
  41. Sayer A. Class, moral worth and recognition. Sociology. 2005;39(5):947-963. doi: 10.1177/0038038505058376.
  42. Roth S, Dashper K. Sociology in the 1980s: The rise of gender (and Intersectionality). Sociology, 2016;50(6):NP1–NP12. doi:10.1177/0038038515620359.
  43. Cambridge Dictionary.s.v. intersectionality. 2014.
  44. Carbado DW, Crenshaw KW, Mays VM, Tomlinson B. Intersectionality: Mapping the Movements of a Theory1. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race. 2013;10(2):303-312. doi: 10.1017/S1742058X13000349.
  45. Urbancikova N, Manakova N, Ganna B. Socio-economic and regional factors of digital literacy related to prosperity. Quality Innovation Prosperity. 2017;21(2):124-141. doi: 10.12776/qip.v21i2.942.
  46. Swartz R, Ivancheva M, Czerniewicz L, Morris NP. Between a rock and a hard place: dilemmas regarding the purpose of public universities in South Africa. Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10734-018-0291-9.
  47. Lynch K, Ivancheva M. Academic freedom and the commercialisation of universities: A critical ethical analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 2016;15(1):71-85.
  48. Selwyn N. Learning to love the micro: The discursive construction of ‘educational’ computing in the UK, 1979-89. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2002;23(3):427-443. doi: 10.1080/0142569022000015454.


Swift, Reliable, and studious. We aim to cherish the world by publishing precise knowledge.

  • asd
  • Brown University Library
  • University of Glasgow Library
  • University of Pennsylvania, Penn Library
  • University of Amsterdam Library
  • The University of British Columbia Library
  • UC Berkeley’s Library
  • MIT Libraries
  • Kings College London University
  • University of Texas Libraries
  • UNSW Sidney Library
  • The University of Hong Kong Libraries
  • UC Santa Barbara Library
  • University of Toronto Libraries
  • University of Oxford Library
  • Australian National University
  • ScienceOpen
  • UIC Library
  • KAUST University Library
  • Cardiff University Library
  • Ball State University Library
  • Duke University Library
  • Rutgers University Library
  • Air University Library
  • UNT University of North Texas
  • Washington Research Library Consortium
  • Penn State University Library
  • Georgetown Library
  • Princeton University Library
  • Science Gate
  • Internet Archive
  • WashingTon State University Library
  • Dimensions
  • Zenodo
  • OpenAire
  • Index Copernicus International
  • icmje
  •  International Scientific Indexing (ISI)
  • Sherpa Romeo
  • ResearchGate
  • Universidad De Lima
  • WorldCat
  • JCU Discovery
  • McGill
  • National University of Singepore Libraries
  • SearchIT
  • Scilit
  • SemantiScholar
  • Base Search
  • VU
  • KB
  • Publons
  • oaji
  • Harvard University
  • sjsu-library
  • UWLSearch
  • Florida Institute of Technology
  • CrossRef
  • LUBsearch
  • Universitat de Paris
  • Technical University of Denmark
  • ResearchBIB
  • Google Scholar
  • Microsoft Academic Search