Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37509006›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2023

Cognitive Gain in Digital Foreign Language Learning.

Blanka Klimova, Marcel Pikhart

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Blanka KlimovaDepartment of Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Informatics and Management, University of Hradec Kralove, 500 03 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-8000-9766
Marcel PikhartDepartment of Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Informatics and Management, University of Hradec Kralove, 500 03 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-5633-9332

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review examines the potential of digital language learning in contributing to students' cognitive gains. The study reviews existing research on the relationship between digital language learning and cognitive benefits, with a focus on enhanced problem-solving skills, memory, and multitasking ability. The research questions explored in this study are (1) does digital language learning contribute to cognitive gains in foreign language education? and (2) what are the pedagogical implications for cognitive improvement in digital foreign language education? The study employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology to identify and analyze relevant research articles. The results of the review suggest that working with printed texts may be more effective for cognitive gains compared to electronic texts. Additionally, implementing more senses through digital language education appears to be beneficial for cognitive gains. Thus, several pedagogical implications emerge for promoting cognitive improvement in digital foreign language education. Firstly, it is crucial to implement techniques and strategies that best align with students' language needs in a digital learning environment, whether it involves pen-and-paper activities or a flipped classroom approach. Secondly, exposing students to a variety of techniques that engage multiple senses can have a positive impact on cognitive gains. Finally, providing students with feedback is essential to maintain their motivation and foster continued progress in their foreign language studies.

Indexed as

cognitive benefitscognitive improvementforeign language learningsecond language

Identifiers

PMID37509006
PMCPMC10376944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.