THE ROLE OF DIGITAL TOOLS IN ENHANCING FOREIGN LANGUAGE SKILLS IN HOME-BASED SPECIAL EDUCATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57033/mijournals-2026-7-0129Keywords:
digital tools, foreign language skills, special education, home-based education, assistive technology, Universal Design for Learning, inclusive pedagogy, language acquisition.Abstract
This article examines the role of digital tools in enhancing foreign
language skills among learners with special educational needs (SEN) in home-based
instructional settings. Employing the IMRAD (Introduction, Materials and Methods,
Results, and Discussion) research framework, the study conducts a mixed-methods
systematic review of 72 peer-reviewed studies published between 2014 and 2025. The
investigation addresses four core research questions concerning the types of digital
tools employed, their effectiveness across receptive and productive language skills,
the factors mediating successful implementation, and the barriers confronting families
and educators. Results reveal that digital tools including mobile applications, gamified
platforms, speech recognition software, augmentative and alternative communication
(AAC) technologies, virtual reality environments, and AI-powered adaptive tutoring
systems demonstrate statistically significant positive effects on vocabulary acquisition,
reading comprehension, listening skills, and oral communication for learners with diverse
disabilities. However, effectiveness is mediated by variables including disability type and
severity, the quality of caregiver scaffolding, technological accessibility features, and the
alignment between tool design and individual learner profiles. The discussion situates
these findings within Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and sociocultural theoretical
frameworks, identifies critical gaps in the evidence base, and proposes recommendations
for practitioners, developers, and policymakers committed to equitable foreign language
education for all learners.
Downloads
References
1. Beukelman, D. R., & Light, J. C. (2020). Augmentative and alternative communication:
Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (5th ed.). Paul H.
Brookes Publishing.
2. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to
meta-analysis. Wiley.
3. Burdette, P. J., & Greer, D. L. (2014). Online and blended learning: A survey of policy
and practice of K–12 schools around the world. International Association for K–12 Online
Learning.
4. Camacho-Sanjuan, A., Hidalgo-Torres, H., & Burgos, D. (2019). Digital tools for hearing-
impaired learners in foreign language education: A systematic review. Education Sciences,
9(2), 40–58.
5. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.
cast.org
6. Chapelle, C. A., & Sauro, S. (Eds.). (2017). The handbook of technology and second
language teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell.
7. Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2015). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice (4th
ed.). Elsevier.
8. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
9. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to
gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th International Academic
MindTrek Conference, 9–15. ACM.
10. Duman, G., & Orhon, G. (2020). The effectiveness of tablet-based vocabulary instruction
for students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(4),
1340–1365.
11. Edyburn, D. L. (2015). Expanding the use of assistive technology while mindful of the
need to understand effectiveness. In D. L. Edyburn (Ed.), Efficacy of assistive technology
interventions (pp. 73–110). Emerald Group Publishing.
12. Engel, C., Lillie, K., Zurawski, S., & Travers, B. G. (2020). Curriculum-based reading
measures and text-to-speech technology: Exploring the effects for students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(2), 71–83.
13. Fernandez-Lopez, A., Rodriguez-Fortiz, M. J., Rodriguez-Almendros, M. L., & Martinez-
Segura, M. J. (2013). Mobile learning technology for children with special educational
needs. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 77–81.
14. Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., Thompson, A., Gibson, A., & Sherlock, Z. (2019). Stimulating
and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of chatbot and
human task partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 461–468.
15. Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014).
Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their
effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–98.
16. Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a
foreign language.’ British Council Publications.
17. Groves, M., & Mundt, K. (2021). A systematic review of research on language learners’
engagement with AI-powered tools. ReCALL, 33(1), 40–58.
18. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of
empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences, 3025–3034. IEEE.
19. Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2015). Developing online language teaching: Research-based
pedagogies and reflective practices. Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., ... & Vedel, I.
(2018). Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright,
1148552, 1–18.
21. Jolly, J. L., Matthews, M. S., & Nester, J. (2020). Homeschooling and gifted education: A
review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 150–168.
22. Kaiser, A. P., & Roberts, M. Y. (2013). Parent-implemented enhanced milieu teaching with
preschool children who have intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 56(1), 295–309.
23. Khowaja, K., & Salim, S. S. (2018). A systematic review of strategies and computer-based
technological interventions for vocabulary enhancement of learners with autism spectrum
disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(1), 87–101.
24. Kormos, J., & Smith, A. M. (2012). Teaching languages to students with specific learning
differences. Multilingual Matters.
25. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning:
From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271–289.
26. Lan, Y. J. (2020). Immersion into virtual reality for language learning. In M. Kruk & M.
Peterson (Eds.), New technological applications for foreign and second language learning
and teaching (pp. 34–58). IGI Global.
27. Lancioni, G. E., & Singh, N. N. (2014). Assistive technologies for people with diverse
abilities. Springer.
28. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford University Press.
29. Lizarondo, L., Stern, C., Carrier, J., Godfrey, C., Rieger, K., Salmond, S., Apostolo, J.,
Kirkpatrick, P., & Loveday, H. (2020). Chapter 8: Mixed methods systematic reviews. In
E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis (pp. 1–36). JBI.
30. MacArthur, C. A. (2009). Reflections on research on writing and technology for struggling
writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 93–103.
31. McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (2013). The iPad and mobile technology revolution: Benefits
and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(2), 107–116.
32. Ok, M. W., Kim, M. K., Kang, E. Y., & Bryant, B. R. (2017). How to find good apps: An
evaluation rubric for instructional apps for teaching students with learning disabilities.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(4), 1–11.
33. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D.,
... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting
systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, 1–11.
34. Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2011). Technology to support writing by students with learning and
academic disabilities: Recent research trends and findings. Assistive Technology Outcomes
and Benefits, 7(1), 39–62.
35. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical
guide. Blackwell Publishing.
36. Repetto, J. B., Spitler, C. J., & Cox, C. (2019). Technology solutions for students with
disabilities in career and technical education. In V. C. X. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of research
on e-learning applications for career and technical education (pp. 42–63). IGI Global.
37. Roberts, M. Y., & Kaiser, A. P. (2011). The effectiveness of parent-implemented language
interventions: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(3),
180–199.
38. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design
for Learning. ASCD.
39. Schuck, R. K., & Lambert, R. (2020). “Am I doing enough?” Special educators’ experiences
with emergency remote teaching in spring 2020. Education Sciences, 10(11), 320–339.
40. Shamir, A., Korat, O., & Fellah, R. (2012). Promoting vocabulary, phonological awareness
and concept about print among children at risk for learning disability: Can e-books help?
Reading and Writing, 25(1), 45–69.
41. Sharma, M., Purdy, S. C., & Kelly, A. S. (2019). Comorbidity of auditory processing,
language, and reading disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
52(3), 706–722.
42. Smaldino, J. J., & Flexer, C. (2012). Handbook of acoustic accessibility: Best practices for
listening, learning, and literacy in the classroom. Thieme.
43. Stetter, M. E., & Hughes, M. T. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to enhance the reading
comprehension of struggling readers: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 25(4), 1–16.
44. Svensson, I., Nordström, T., Lindeblad, E., Gustafson, S., Nilsson, S., & Cardelle-Elawar,
M. (2021). Effects of assistive technology for students with reading and writing disabilities:
A meta-analysis. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(3), 304–325.
45. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research
in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 1–10.
46. UNESCO. (2016). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action. UNESCO
Publishing.
47. Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening:
Metacognition in action. Routledge.
48. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
49. Xin, J. F., & Leonard, D. A. (2015). Using iPads to teach communication skills of students
with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(12), 4154–4164.
50. Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about
time! Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72–93.
51. Zabala, J. S. (2005). Using the SETT framework to level the learning field for students with
disabilities. Governor’s Alliance of Technology and Education.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Malika ERGASHEVA (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Open Access License and Copyright Terms
All articles published in The Journal of Interdisciplinary Human Studies are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction, and adaptation of the work in any medium or format, provided that the original author(s) and the source are properly credited.
Authors retain full copyright to their published work and grant the journal the right of first publication.
✅ Official license URL:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Shahzod Islomov
Bahrom Abduhalimov
Mahmud Erol Qilich
