Submitted:
07 May 2024
Posted:
08 May 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
1.1. Background of the Study
1.2. Research Objectives
1.3. Structure of the Paper
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theoretical Foundations in Language Learning
2.2. Advances in AI in Educational Contexts
2.3. Cross-Cultural Communication and Language Education
3. Theoretical Framework
3.1. Application of Language Learning Theories
3.1.1. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
3.1.2. Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory
3.1.3. Task-Based Language Learning
3.2. Artificial Intelligence and Technology Acceptance Model
3.2.1. Canale and Swain’s Model of Communicative Competence
3.2.2. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
3.2.3. Adaptive Learning Technologies
4. CILS Framework: Enhancing Cross-Cultural Language Learning
4.1. Cultural Sensitivity and Adaptability
4.1.1. Application of Communicative Competence Models
4.1.2. Use of Multicultural Content and Scenarios
4.1.3. Adaptive Learning Technologies in Cultural Education
4.2. Interaction and Engagement
4.2.1. Based on Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory
4.2.2. Task-Based Learning Methods
4.2.3. AI-Driven Realtime Interaction Enhancements
4.3. Automation and Optimization of Language Learning
4.3.1. Application of Natural Language Processing
4.3.2. Machine Learning for Optimizing Learning Paths
4.3.3. Assessing and Enhancing User Experience via the TAM
5. Case Studies: Validating the CILS Framework
5.1. Case Study One: Busuu
5.1.1. Detailed Description of Busuu
5.1.2. Application of the CILS Framework in Busuu
5.1.3. Insights and Implications from Busuu
5.1.4. Conclusion
5.2. Case Study Two: HelloTalk
5.2.1. Detailed Description of HelloTalk
5.2.2. Application of the CILS Framework in HelloTalk
5.2.3. Insights and Implications from HelloTalk
5.2.4. Conclusion
6. Discussion
6.1. Summary of Findings
6.2. Implications for Future Research
7. Conclusion
7.1. Recapitulation of the Study’s Contributions
7.2. Recommendations for Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cretchley, J.; Rooney, D.; Gallois, C. Mapping a 40-year history with Leximancer: Themes and concepts in the J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2010, 41(3), 318-328. [CrossRef]
- Deneme, S. Cross-cultural differences in language learning strategy preferences: A comparative study. Int. J. Lang. Soc. Cult. 2010, 31, 81–89. [Google Scholar]
- Titarenko, L.; Little, C. B. International cross-cultural online learning and teaching: Effective tools and approaches. Am. J. Distance Educ. 2017, 31(2), 112–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shadiev, R.; Sun, A.; Huang, Y. M. A study of the facilitation of cross-cultural understanding and intercultural sensitivity using speech-enabled language translation technology. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50(3), 1415–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luckin, R.; Cukurova, M. Designing educational technologies in the age of AI: A learning sciences-driven approach. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50(6), 2824–2838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bates, T.; Cobo, C.; Mariño, O.; Wheeler, S. Can artificial intelligence transform higher education? Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, G. Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2023, 32(3), 444–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, R. A.; Jawaid, M.; Khan, A. R.; Sajjad, M. ChatGPT-Reshaping medical education and clinical management. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2023, 39(2), 605. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, Y.; Seth, I.; Hunter-Smith, D. J.; Rozen, W. M.; Seifman, M. A. Investigating the impact of innovative AI chatbot on post-pandemic medical education and clinical assistance: a comprehensive analysis. ANZ J. Surg. 2024, 94(1-2), 68-77. [CrossRef]
- Shirazi, M.; Ponzer, S.; Zarghi, N.; Keshmiri, F.; Motlagh, M. K.; Zavareh, D. K.; Khankeh, H. R. Inter-cultural and cross-cultural communication through physicians’ lens: perceptions and experiences. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2020, 11, 158. [Google Scholar]
- Barker, G. G. Cross-cultural perspectives on intercultural communication competence. J. Intercult. Commun. Res. 2016, 45(1), 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L. Cross-cultural communication in business negotiations. Int. J. Econ. Finance. 2010, 2(2), 196–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochieng, E. G.; Price, A. D. Managing cross-cultural communication in multicultural construction project teams: The case of Kenya and UK. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28(5), 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anand, P. K. K. Cross cultural diversity in today’s globalized era. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014; 2, (6-1), 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karimi, M. N.; Nazari, M. Growth in language teachers’ understanding of differentiated instruction: a sociocultural theory perspective. J. Educ. Teach. 2021, 47(3), 322–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marginson, S.; Dang, T. K. A. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in the context of globalization. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2017, 37(1), 116–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eun, B. From learning to development: A sociocultural approach to instruction. Camb. J. Educ. 2010, 40(4), 401–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozfidan, B.; Machtmes, K. L.; Demir, H. Socio-cultural factors in second language learning: A case study of adventurous adult language learners. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 2014, 3(4), 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şimşek, B.; Bakir, S. The use of task-based language teaching method to teach terms and phrases for those learning Turkish as a second language and sample activities. J. Lang. Linguist. Stud. 2019, 15(2), 719–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robertson, M. Task-based language teaching and expansive learning theory. Tesl Can. J. 2014, 187–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sholeh, M. B. Task-based learning in the classroom for Efl learners: how and why? J. Lang. Pragmat. Stud. 2023, 2(3), 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malmir, A.; Sarem, S. N.; Ghasemi, A. The Effect of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) vs. Content-Based. Iran. EFL J. 2011; 7, (6), 79–94. [Google Scholar]
- Whaley, A. L.; Nol, L. T. Sociocultural theories, academic achievement, and African American adolescents in a multicultural context: A review of the cultural compatibility perspective. J. Negro Educ. 2012, 81(1), 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buriro, G. A.; Hayat, T. Task-Based Learning: An In-Class ELT Experiment. J. Educ. Res. 2010; 13, (2). [Google Scholar]
- Bastos, M.; Araújo e Sá, H. Pathways to teacher education for intercultural communicative competence: Teachers’ perceptions. Lang. Learn. J. 2015, 43(2), 131–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chun, D. M. Developing intercultural communicative competence through online exchanges. Calico J. 2011, 28(2), 392-419. https://www.jstor.org/stable/calicojournal.28.2.392.
- Byram, M.; Holmes, P.; Savvides, N. Intercultural communicative competence in foreign language education: Questions of theory, practice and research. Lang. Learn. J. 2013, 41(3), 251–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanbecelaere, S.; Van den Berghe, K.; Cornillie, F.; Sasanguie, D.; Reynvoet, B.; Depaepe, F. The effectiveness of adaptive versus non-adaptive learning with digital educational games. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2020, 36(4), 502–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, F. A discussion on developing students’ communicative competence in college English teaching in China. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2010, 1(2), 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiaoyu, Z.; Tobias, T. C. Exploring the Efficacy of Adaptive Learning Technologies in Online Education: A Longitudinal Analysis of Student Engagement and Performance. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Appl. 2023, 12(12), 28–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shobikah, N. The competencies in English. J. Res. Engl. Lang. Learn. 2020, 1(1), 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, T. C.; Wang, T. I.; Su, C. Y.; Lee, M. C. A fuzzy logic-based personalized learning system for supporting adaptive English learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2012; 15, (1), 273–288. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, K.; Papamitsiou, Z.; Giannakos, M. Building pipelines for educational data using AI and multimodal analytics: A “grey-box” approach. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50(6), 3004–3031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerr, P. Adaptive learning. ELT J. 2016, 70(1), 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozkaya, M.; Aydin, I. E.; Kumtepe, E. G. Research Trends and Issues in Educational Technology: A Content Analysis of TOJET. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. 2011; 11, (2), 264–277. [Google Scholar]
- Hew, K. F.; Lan, M.; Tang, Y.; Jia, C.; Lo, C. K. Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50(3), 956–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Istenic Starcic, A.; Bagon, S. ICT-supported learning for inclusion of people with special needs: Review of seven educational technology journals. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2014, 45(2), 202–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laksana, D. N. L. Implementation of online learning in the pandemic covid-19: Student perception in areas with minimum internet access. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 4(4), 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarhini, A.; Hone, K.; Liu, X. A cross-cultural examination of the impact of social, organisational and individual factors on educational technology acceptance between British and Lebanese university students. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 46(4), 739–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, H. C.; Chang, C. Y.; Wen-Shiane, L.; Fan, Y. L.; Wu, Y. T. The implementation of mobile learning in outdoor education: Application of QR codes. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2013, 44(2), E57–E62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, A. S.; George, A. H. A review of ChatGPT AI’s impact on several business sectors. Partners Univ. Int. Innov. J. 2023, 1(1), 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passonneau, R. J.; McNamara, D.; Muresan, S.; Perin, D. Preface: special issue on multidisciplinary approaches to AI and education for reading and writing. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 2017, 27, 665–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]





| Language Skill | Improvement Percentage |
|---|---|
| Grammar | 40% |
| Vocabulary | 35% |
| Pronunciation | 25% |
| Region | Utilization Rate (%) |
|---|---|
| North America | 75% |
| Europe | 60% |
| Asia | 50% |
| Africa | 30% |
| AI Technology | Adoption Rate (%) |
|---|---|
| Machine Learning | 78% |
| Natural Language Processing | 84% |
| Deep Learning | 65% |
| System | Cultural Adaptability Rating |
|---|---|
| CILS | High |
| Traditional Methods | Low |
| Other AI Systems | Medium |
| Metric | AI-Enhanced Environment | Traditional Setting |
|---|---|---|
| Learning Speed | 50% Faster | Base Rate |
| Retention Rates | 30% Higher | Base Rate |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: 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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
