This study explores the integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in informal digital learning of English (IDLE) practices, focusing on its potential to enhance language learning outcomes and addressing the technological challenges language teachers face in utilising AI-based tools to facilitate second language acquisition. Based on the research context of IDLE and holistic learning ecology and drawing on the theoretical frameworks of technological pedagogical and content knowledge and social cognitive theory, we performed a mixed-methods investigation with an empirical experiment to assess the effectiveness of GenAI followed by semi-structured interviews. The results suggest that the GenAI-mediated IDLE practices effectively improve college students’ oral proficiency in English from both technological and humanistic perspectives. However, results also indicate that the GenAI conversational partner alone is not adequate to provoke continuous extramural GenAI-mediated IDLE practices. We discuss the theoretical and pragmatic significance of GenAI-mediated IDLE in educational equity and reformation.

Anxiety is among the most frequently studied emotions in second language acquisition (SLA). Study abroad (SA) researchers have examined its effects on SLA in that setting in a number of studies. The current study goes beyond previous SA research by examining how anxiety develops and connects with language proficiency development over SA. Specifically, it uses anxiety-related measures of foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA), foreign language enjoyment (FLE), and a physiological manifestation of anxiety (hair cortisol). As far as the classroom is concerned, learners grew more comfortable, experiencing less anxiety and more enjoyment over the period of SA. However, learners showed physiological signs of overall elevated anxiety despite these increasing classroom comfort levels. Two key factors that may have influenced their anxiety levels abroad were tendency toward anxiety prior to SA and language proficiency upon departure for SA. The latter provides support for having students more proficient prior to SA, since doing so may lead to less anxiety during SA.

The ever growing interest in the development of foreign or second (L2) oral proficiency in a computer-mediated communication (CMC) classroom has resulted in a large body of studies looking at both the direct and indirect effects of CMC interventions on the acquisition of oral competences. The present study employed a quantitative meta-analytic approach to investigate such effects by synthesizing (quasi)experimental studies that provide empirical quantitative data for effect size calculation. A literature search located 25 relevant studies for the final analysis. Each study was independently coded for learner, design and publication characteristics. The averaged effect size was estimated from the included studies. The results of the meta-analysis reveal that communication mediated by computer/technologies produced a moderate positive effect on L2 learners’ oral proficiency compared to face-to-face (F2F) communication or no interaction. Furthermore, CMC has roughly similar effect on pronunciation, lexical and syntactic level of oral production; however, it might have a negative impact on fluency and accuracy. This meta-analysis also found that the effect of CMC on oral proficiency depends on several methodological factors such as task type, outcome measurement, treatment length, and assessment task. Major findings of the current meta-analysis include: (1) studies relying on elicited data are superior to those utilizing naturalistic data; (2) reading aloud seems to be the task that could elicit the best oral performance from students; (3) surprisingly, CMC appeared to be harmful for accuracy and fluency; (4) studies that employed decision-making generated the largest effect size, followed by studies that used more than one task type; (5) among the four tasks, jigsaw actually generated a negative effect on oral performance; and (6) as the most popular task employed by primary researchers, opinion-exchange studies produced the smallest effect size. These findings need to be interpreted as exploratory rather than confirmatory since each of them became less trustworthy after taking into consideration numerous other factors such as CMC task and the particular CMC tool used, etc. Future research suggestions are provided and the limitations of this meta-analysis are addressed.