Effective academic communication in multilingual higher education requires pragmatic competence, yet this dimension of language ability is often overlooked in instruction and insufficiently supported through feedback or authentic practice. Grounded in instructed pragmatics and technology-mediated learning frameworks, this study reports on the design, implementation, and empirical evaluation of an artificial intelligence (AI)-mediated multimodal platform developed to scaffold pragmatic competence in Indonesian within digital academic contexts. The platform integrates five interdependent features: automated text analysis to identify speech acts, politeness strategies, and violations of conversational principles; video analysis with multilingual transcription and theory-based annotation; conversation simulations providing context-specific academic interactions and real-time feedback; an AI consultation assistant offering explanations, examples, and targeted suggestions; and a digital politeness forum for peer and instructor exchange. A quasi-experimental mixed-methods design was employed with 240 undergraduates (120 in the experimental group, 120 in the control group) over a 5-week intervention. Pre- and postintervention assessments combined a validated pragmatic competence test, discourse completion tasks, and a self-report questionnaire on pragmatic awareness and confidence, complemented by student reflections and discussions. The experimental group demonstrated significantly greater gains in pragmatic test scores (M = 15.0, p < .001) compared with the control (M = 5.2, p < .001), alongside improvements on the discourse completion task (experimental = +14.1 vs. control = +4.8, both p < .001) and medium-to-large effects on awareness and confidence in the questionnaire. Regression analysis identified engagement with conversation simulations (β = 0.58, p < .001) plus AI consultation (β = 0.29, p = .012) as predictors of learning. Reflections and discussions underscored the platform’s role in enabling authentic practice, personalized feedback, and a safe environment for pragmatic experimentation. This study provides the first empirically validated model linking integrated AI-mediated scaffolding features to measurable and transferable gains in pragmatic competence, offering a scalable framework for multilingual and intercultural higher education.
AlsuhaibaniZ. (2020). Developing EFL students’ pragmatic competence: The case of compliment responses. Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 847–866. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913539
2.
AskiJ. M.JiangX.WeintrittA. D. (2023). The impact of explicit instruction in intercultural competence in the world language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 107(4), 1035–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12889
AzevedoR.BouchetF.DuffyM.HarleyJ. M.TaubM.TrevorsG.CloudeE. B.DeverD. A.WiedbuschM.WorthaF.CerezoR. (2022). Lessons learned and future directions of MetaTutor: Leveraging multichannel data to scaffold self-regulated learning with an intelligent tutoring system. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 813632. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.813632
5.
BachmanL. F.PalmerA. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.
Beltrán-PalanquesV.Querol-JuliánM. (2018). English language learners’ spoken interaction: What a multimodal perspective reveals about pragmatic competence. System, 77, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.008
8.
BlackmonS. J.MajorC. H. (2023). Balancing student privacy and technology integration in higher education: Engagement, encroachment and interstitial spaces. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(6), 1539–1541. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13387
ByramM. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
12.
CanaleM.SwainM. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
13.
CanalsL. (2021). Multimodality and translanguaging in negotiation of meaning. Foreign Language Annals, 54(3), 647–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12547
14.
CanonigoA. M. (2024). Levering AI to enhance students’ conceptual understanding and confidence in mathematics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(6), 3215–3229. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13065
15.
Celce-MurciaM.DornyeiZ.ThurrellS. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5070/L462005216
16.
Çelikİ.GedrimieneE.SiklanderP.MuukkonenH. (2024). The affordances of artificial intelligence-based tools for supporting 21st-century skills: A systematic review of empirical research in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.9069
17.
ChenA.ZhangY.JiaJ.LiangM.ChaY.LimC. P. (2025). A systematic review and meta-analysis of AI-enabled assessment in language learning: Design, implementation, and effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), Article e13064. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13064
18.
CheungA. (2021). Language teaching during a pandemic: A case study of Zoom use by a secondary ESL teacher in Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 54(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220981784
19.
ChunD. M. (2011). Developing intercultural communicative competence through online exchanges. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 392–419. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.392-419
20.
CohenA. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners?Language Teaching, 41(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004880
21.
CohnC.SnyderC. R.FontelesJ. H.AshwinT. S.MontenegroJ.BiswasG. (2024). A multimodal approach to support teacher, researcher and AI collaboration in STEM+C learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 595–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13518
22.
CosentinoG.AntonJ.SharmaK.GelsominiM.GiannakosM. N.AbrahamsonD. (2024). Hybrid teaching intelligence: Lessons learned from an embodied mathematics learning experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 621–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13525
23.
CulpeperJ. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.
24.
CurleS.YükselD.SoruçA.AltayM. (2020). Predictors of English medium instruction academic success: English proficiency versus first language medium. System, 95, Article 102378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102378
25.
DeaconB.LauferM.SchäferL. O. (2022). Infusing educational technologies in the heart of the university—A systematic literature review from an organisational perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(2), 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13277
26.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
27.
DimitriadouE.LanitisA. (2023). A critical evaluation, challenges, and future perspectives of using artificial intelligence and emerging technologies in smart classrooms. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00231-3
28.
Dressen-HammoudaD.WighamC. R. (2022). Evaluating multimodal literacy: Academic and professional interactions around student-produced instructional video tutorials. System, 105, Article 102727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102727
29.
EdwardsJ.NguyenA.LämsäJ.SobocinskiM.WhiteheadR.DangB.RobertsA.JärveläS. (2024). Human–AI collaboration: Designing artificial agents to facilitate socially shared regulation among learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 712–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13534
30.
ElaishM. M.HusseinM. H.HwangG. (2022). Critical research trends of mobile technology-supported English language learning: A review of the top 100 highly cited articles. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 4849–4874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11352-6
31.
EmersonA.CloudeE. B.AzevedoR.LesterJ. (2020). Multimodal learning analytics for game-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1505–1526. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12992
32.
EslamiZ. R.MirzaeiA.DiniS. (2015). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. System, 48, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008
González-LloretM. (2022). Technology-mediated tasks for the development of L2 pragmatics. Language Teaching Research, 26(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211064930
35.
GrausJ.CoppenP. A. J. M. (2017). The interface between student teacher grammar cognitions and learner-oriented cognitions. Modern Language Journal, 101(4), 643–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12427
36.
GriceH. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In ColeP.MorganJ. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3: Speech acts, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
37.
GruberA.CantoS.JáuregiK. (2023). Exploring the use of social virtual reality for virtual exchange. ReCALL, 35(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000125
HernándezT. A.BoeroP. (2018). Explicit intervention for Spanish pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: An examination of learner request production and cognition. Foreign Language Annals, 51(2), 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12334
40.
HouseJ.KasperG. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In CoulmasF. (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157–186). Mouton de Gruyter.
41.
HuL.ChenG. (2021). Exploring turn-taking patterns during dialogic collaborative problem solving. Instructional Science, 50(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09565-2
42.
HuangY.ZhangZ.YuJ.LiuX.HuangY. (2022). English phrase learning with multimodal input. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 828022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.828022
43.
HudsonT.BrownJ. D.DetmerE. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report No. 7). University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/publications/view/tr07/
44.
HylandK. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
JacksonJ. (2011). Cultivating cosmopolitan, intercultural citizenship through critical reflection and international, experiential learning. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(2), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2011.556737
47.
JakupčevićE.PortolanM. Ć. (2021). An analysis of pragmatic content in EFL textbooks for young learners in Croatia. Language Teaching Research, 28(1), 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820986936
48.
JärveläS.NguyenA.HadwinA. F. (2023). Human and artificial intelligence collaboration for socially shared regulation in learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1057–1076. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13325
49.
JenkinsJ.CogoA.DeweyM. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 281–315. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444811000115
50.
KamaşakR.ŞahanK. (2023). Academic success in English medium courses: Exploring student challenges, opinions, language proficiency and L2 use. RELC Journal, 55(3), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231167611
KerberN.SheaJ.TecedorM. (2023). “Sorry, that’s all I know!”: A study on web-based pragmatic instruction for novice learners. Foreign Language Annals, 56(3), 645–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12706
54.
KimE. Y. A.BrownL. (2014). Negotiating pragmatic competence in computer mediated communication: The case of Korean address terms. CALICO Journal, 31(3), 264–284. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.31.3.264-284
55.
KimY.TaguchiN. (2016). Learner–learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12180
56.
Kumi-YeboahA. (2023). Diverse students’ perspectives on privacy and technology integration in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(6), 1671–1692. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13386
57.
LeeH.HampelR.Kukulska-HulmeA. (2019). Gesture in speaking tasks beyond the classroom: An exploration of the multimodal negotiation of meaning via Skype videoconferencing on mobile devices. System, 81, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.013
58.
LeeS. S.AzmanH. (2020). Introducing a responsive multimodal oral presentation pedagogy: Integrating TED videos with Web 2.0, collaborative learning and teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 53(3), 703–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220945426
59.
LeeY. (2023). Achieving success in English medium instruction using computer-mediated terminology pretraining under the problem-based learning pedagogy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(3), 921–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12777
LiY.AbadF. M.García-HolgadoA. (2022). Exploring factors influencing pre-service and in-service teachers’ perception of digital competencies in the Chinese region of Anhui. Education and Information Technologies, 27(9), 12469–12494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11085-6
62.
LimL.BannertM.van der GraafJ.FanY.RakovićM.SinghS.MolenaarI.GaševićD. (2023). How do students learn with real-time personalised scaffolds?British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(4), 1309–1327. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13414
63.
LimbergH. (2016). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815590695
LvX.RenW.LiL. (2021). Pragmatic competence and willingness to communicate among L2 learners of Chinese. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 797419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797419
67.
MaaJ.TaguchiN. (2022). Using L2 interactional-pragmatic resources in CMC: A case of Japanese orthography and emoji. Language Teaching Research, 26(2), 190–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211064934
68.
MaoT. (2021). Investigation of L2/Ln pragmatic competence: Its core and route map. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 690550. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.690550
69.
MillsK. A.ScholesL.BrownA. (2022). Virtual reality and embodiment in multimodal meaning making. Written Communication, 39(3), 335–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221083517
70.
MoonJ.KeF.SokolikjZ.Dahlstrom-HakkiI. (2022). Multimodal data fusion to track students’ distress during educational gameplay. Journal of Learning Analytics, 9(3), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2022.7631
71.
MunshiA.BiswasG.BakerR. S.OcumpaughJ.HuttS.PaquetteL. (2022). Analysing adaptive scaffolds that help students develop self-regulated learning behaviours. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12761
72.
MutimukweC.VibergO.ÖbergL.PargmanT. C. (2022). Students’ privacy concerns in learning analytics: Model development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 932–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13234
73.
NanH. (2022). Revisiting L2 pragmatic competence through implicit vs. explicit instructional framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 987729. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987729
74.
NeshaeiS. P.Mejia-DomenzainP.DavisR. L.KäserT. (2025). Metacognition meets AI: Empowering reflective writing with large language models. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(5), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13601
75.
NguyenA.JärveläS.RoséC. P.JärvenojaH.MalmbergJ. (2022). Examining socially shared regulation and shared physiological arousal events with multimodal learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(1), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13280
76.
NguyenT. T. M. (2011). Learning to communicate in a globalized world: To what extent do school textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence?RELC Journal, 42(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210390265
77.
NorooziO.AlikhaniI.JärveläS.KirschnerP. A.JuusoI.SeppänenT. (2019). Multimodal data to design visual learning analytics for understanding regulation of learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.019
78.
OranjeJ.SmithL. F. (2017). Language teacher cognitions and intercultural language teaching: The New Zealand perspective. Language Teaching Research, 22(3), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817691319
79.
PackA.MaloneyJ. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in TESOL: Some ethical and pedagogical considerations. TESOL Quarterly, 58(2), 1007–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3320
80.
PoquetO.NguyenQ.KovanovićV.BrooksC.DawsonS.BiotteauA. (2022). Grade-based similarity prevails in online course forums at scale. Computers & Education, 178, Article 104401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104401
81.
QiaoH.ZhaoA. (2023). Artificial intelligence-based language learning: Illuminating the impact on speaking skills and self-regulation in Chinese EFL context. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1255594. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1255594
82.
QinW.JiaR.RenW. (2024). Pragmatic competence in an email writing task: Influences of situation, L1 background, and L2 proficiency. Written Communication, 41(4), 726–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883241263543
83.
RakovićM.IqbalS.LiT.FanY.SinghS.SurendrannairS.KilgourJ.van der GraafJ.LimL.MolenaarI.BannertM.MooreJ. D.GaševićD. (2022). Harnessing the potential of trace data and linguistic analysis to predict learner performance in a multi-text writing task. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(3), 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12769
84.
RankerJ. (2021). The operation of différance in a student-produced digital video: Insights into differing and deferring signifier operations and relations in multimodal discourse. Visual Communication, 23(1), 72–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/14703572211044791
SaitoK.WuX. (2014). Communicative focus on form and second language suprasegmental learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(4), 647–680. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000114
87.
Sánchez-HernándezA.Alcón-SolerE. (2019). Pragmatic gains in the study abroad context: Learners’ experiences and recognition of pragmatic routines. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.006
88.
Sánchez-HernándezA.BarónJ. (2021). Teaching second language pragmatics in the current era of globalization: An introduction. Language Teaching Research, 26(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211064931
89.
Sánchez-HernándezA.Martínez-FlorA. (2021). Teaching the pragmatics of English as an international language: A focus on pragmatic markers. Language Teaching Research, 26(2), 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211064933
90.
SatarM. (2016). Meaning-making in online language learner interactions via desktop videoconferencing. ReCALL, 28(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344016000100
SharmaK.NguyenA.HongY. (2024). Self-regulation and shared regulation in collaborative learning in adaptive digital learning environments: A systematic review of empirical studies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(4), 1398–1436. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13459
96.
Spencer-OateyH. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Spencer-OateyH. (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (pp. 11–47). Continuum.
97.
Spencer-OateyH.JiangW. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: Moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1633–1650. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00025-0
98.
SpikolD.RuffaldiE.DabisiasG.CukurovaM. (2018). Supervised machine learning in multimodal learning analytics for estimating success in project-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(4), 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12263
99.
StockwellE. (2015). Using web-based exploratory tasks to develop intercultural competence in a homogeneous cultural environment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(6), 649–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1049642
100.
SydorenkoT.DaurioP.ThorneS. L. (2017). Refining pragmatically-appropriate oral communication via computer-simulated conversations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1–2), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1394326
101.
SykesJ. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 399–431. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i3.399-431
TaguchiN. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
104.
TaguchiN. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Routledge.
105.
TaguchiN. (2023). Technology-enhanced language learning and pragmatics: Insights from digital game-based pragmatics instruction. Language Teaching, 57(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000101
106.
TaguchiN.XiaoF.LiS. (2016). Effects of intercultural competence and social contact on speech act production in a Chinese study abroad context. Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 775–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12349
107.
TangQ.DengW.HuangY.WangS.ZhangH. (2025). Can generative artificial intelligence be a good teaching assistant? An empirical analysis based on generative AI-assisted teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(3), Article e70027. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70027
108.
VeenstraA.HollebrandseB.KatsosN. (2017). Why some children accept under-informative utterances. Pragmatics & Cognition, 24(2), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00003.vee
109.
VibergO.GrönlundÅ.AnderssonA. (2020). Integrating digital technology in mathematics education: A Swedish case study. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1770801
110.
WangT.LiJ. (2025). How to improve communication competence of government leading officials in intercultural environment? The driving role of intercultural psychological factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1544626. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1544626
111.
WeiL. (2023). Artificial intelligence in language instruction: Impact on English learning achievement, L2 motivation, and self-regulated learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1261955. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261955
112.
WengX.YeH.DaiY.NgO. (2024). Integrating artificial intelligence and computational thinking in educational contexts: A systematic review of instructional design and student learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(6), 1640–1670. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241248686
113.
XuZ.WijekumarK.RamírezG.HuX.IreyR. (2019). The effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3119–3137. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12758
114.
YangH. (2022). Second language learners’ competence of and beliefs about pragmatic comprehension: Insights from the Chinese EFL context. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 801315. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.801315
115.
YounS. J. (2014). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(2), 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214557113
116.
YuJ.YuS.ChenL. (2024). Using hybrid intelligence to enhance peer feedback for promoting teacher reflection in video-based online learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 569–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13559
117.
Zappa-HollmanS.FoxJ. (2021). Engaging in linguistically responsive instruction: Insights from a first-year university program for emergent multilingual learners. TESOL Quarterly, 55(4), 1081–1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3075
118.
ZhangY.PapiM. (2021). Motivation and second language pragmatics: A regulatory focus perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 753605. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753605
119.
ZhaoY.LlorenteA. M. P.GómezM. C. S. (2021). Digital competence in higher education research: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 168, Article 104212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104212
