Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Language Learning for Grammar Accuracy

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) for grammar accuracy. The study utilized developmental research design to determine the effectiveness of the Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) tools for grammar accuracy. This involved an experimental group exposed to CALL-based instruction with a total of 24 participants and a control group taught using traditional instruction with a total of 24 participants. A 50-item pre-test and post-test were administered to the participants for comparison to determine the effectiveness of CALL tools for grammar accuracy. A researcher-developed, content-validated survey questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale was used to gather the level of acceptability and functionality of CALL for grammar accuracy. The data from pre-test and post-test and the level of acceptability and functionality were analyzed using frequency, percentage distribution, mean and standard deviation. An Independent Samples t-test was utilized to determine whether there is a significant difference between the post-test scores of the experimental and control groups. The test was conducted at a 0.05 level of significance. The computed t-value of -2.189 and p-value of 0.034 reveal that there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups at the 0.05 level of significance, the null hypothesis is rejected. The use of computer-assisted language learning tools proved to be a statistically in improving the grammar accuracy of students. Results showed that the CALL tools were Very Highly Acceptable (M = 4.88) level of acceptability and for the level of functionality, the tools were rated Very Functional (M = 4.68). The findings reveal that CALL enhances engagement, supports grammar learning and provides an effective and user-friendly instructional approach. The study concludes that CALL is an effective pedagogical tool for enhancing grammar accuracy when supported by clear instructional design and reliable technological performance.

Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

1. Ahmed, H. M. M., El-Sabagh, H. A., & Elbourhamy, D. M. (2025). Effect of gamified mobile cloud-based learning management system on student engagement and achievement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(49). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00541-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Al-Jarf, R. (2021). The impact of computer-assisted language learning on EFL students’ grammar and writing skills. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 123–138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Chapelle, C. A. (2021). Computer-assisted language learning. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0457 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. García-Murillo, M., & Annabi, H. (2024). Understanding the impact of gamification on student engagement and learning outcomes in digital environments. Computers & Education, 195, 104709. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ghai, A., & Tandon, U. (2023). Integrating gamification and instructional design to enhance usability of online learning. Education and Information Technologies, 28(2), 2187–2206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11202-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2023). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107517 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Loewen, S., et al. (2020). Task-based language teaching. In The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 931-947). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Li, M., & Lan, Y.-J. (2023). Effects of gamified computer-assisted language learning on learner engagement and motivation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(5–6), 1021–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1908245 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Matviienko, O., Kravchenko, V., & Shevchuk, I. (2024). Real-time feedback in gamified language learning environments: Enhancing linguistic accuracy and learner engagement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(5–6), 987–1005. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.229874 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2019). "Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study." Language Teaching Research, 23(1), 1-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Nurhayati, N. (2025). Gamification in school education: A systematic review of its effects on motivation and learning outcomes. Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Qudsi, H. (2024). Gamification In Education: Boosting Student Engagement And Learning Outcomes. ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts. 5. 10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i4.2024.2542. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Rahman, R. A., Ahmad, S., & Hashim, U. R. (2018). The effectiveness of gamification technique for higher education students engagement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(41). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0123-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Reiter, M. (2025). Gamification in education: Effectiveness and impact on student motivation. Acta Educationis Generalis, 15(s1), 38-51. https://doi.org/10.2478/atd-2025-0013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Sanchez, A. B., Cruz, M. L., & Torres, J. P. (2024). Effects of online learning environments on student performance compared to traditional instruction. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Soner, S. (2023). Gamification in language learning: A comparative study of traditional and game-based techniques. Educational Technology & Society, 26(3), 45–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Subhash, S., & Cudney, E. A. (2021). Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Vrcelj, A., Hoic-Božic, N., & Dlab, M. H. (2023). Use of Gamification in Primary and Secondary Education: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 9(1), 13–27 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Wang, W. T., & Kartika Sari, M. (2024). Examining the effect of the task-technology fit of game mechanisms on learning outcomes in online gamification platforms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(8), 1568-1595. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231187285 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 30, 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2022). Effects of technology-enhanced language learning on learners’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(1–2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1850539 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests