A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice

A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775" }, "headline": "A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project...", "datePublished": "2025-08-08T10:48:45", "dateModified": "2025-12-27T05:27:11", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ainun Fikria" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Slamet Setiawan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ahmad Munir" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background The integration of digital technologies into project-based language learning has attracted growing scholarly attention; however, research in this area remains conceptually fragmented. A systematic synthesis of theoretical foundations, projects typologies, language skills and knowledge addressed, and pedagogical implications of technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) is still limited. Methods Restricted to SSCI-indexed publications and guided by PRISMA 2020 protocols, this systematic review examined 31 empirical studies published between 2015 and 2024. The analysis focused on the nature of publications, underlying theoretical frameworks, types of technology-supported projects, reported language-learning outcomes, and implications for research and instructional practice. Results The reviewed studies indicate that TEPBLL research is predominantly grounded in five theoretical frameworks and encompasses seven diverse technology-supported projects types. Across studies, TEPBLL is frequently reported improvements in eight major skills and knowledge areas. The review also identifies recurring three dimensions of implications for instructional practice and future research. Conclusions This review systematically synthesizes prevailing patterns in the TEPBLL literature. The study offers a coherent and comprehensive overview that can guide future research design and support more theory-informed, methodologically rigorous, and context-sensitive application of TEPBLL. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775", "name": "A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language..." } } ] } Home Browse A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Fikria A, Setiawan S and Munir A. A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165491.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Revised A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Ainun Fikria https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3238-4662 1 , Slamet Setiawan 1 , Ahmad Munir https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0606-3590 1 Ainun Fikria https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3238-4662 1 , Slamet Setiawan 1 , Ahmad Munir https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0606-3590 1 PUBLISHED 27 Dec 2025 Author details Author details 1 Language and Literature Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia Ainun Fikria Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Slamet Setiawan Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Ahmad Munir Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning gateway. Abstract Background The integration of digital technologies into project-based language learning has attracted growing scholarly attention; however, research in this area remains conceptually fragmented. A systematic synthesis of theoretical foundations, projects typologies, language skills and knowledge addressed, and pedagogical implications of technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) is still limited. Methods Restricted to SSCI-indexed publications and guided by PRISMA 2020 protocols, this systematic review examined 31 empirical studies published between 2015 and 2024. The analysis focused on the nature of publications, underlying theoretical frameworks, types of technology-supported projects, reported language-learning outcomes, and implications for research and instructional practice. Results The reviewed studies indicate that TEPBLL research is predominantly grounded in five theoretical frameworks and encompasses seven diverse technology-supported projects types. Across studies, TEPBLL is frequently reported improvements in eight major skills and knowledge areas. The review also identifies recurring three dimensions of implications for instructional practice and future research. Conclusions This review systematically synthesizes prevailing patterns in the TEPBLL literature. The study offers a coherent and comprehensive overview that can guide future research design and support more theory-informed, methodologically rigorous, and context-sensitive application of TEPBLL. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Project-based language learning, educational technology, computer assisted language learning, technology enhanced language learning, systematic literature review. Corresponding Author(s) Slamet Setiawan ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Slamet Setiawan Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This research was supported by Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan, Indonesia. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Fikria A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Fikria A, Setiawan S and Munir A. A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165491.2 ) First published: 08 Aug 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165491.1 ) Latest published: 27 Dec 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165491.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 The Abstract has been rewritten to adopt a more academic tone, reduce repetition, and align claims consistently with the evidence presented. The Introduction has been revised to more explicitly articulate the research gap, emphasizing the absence of a comprehensive systematic synthesis that integrates theoretical frameworks, technology-supported project types, language skills, and pedagogical implications within technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBBLL). The Methods section has been expanded to strengthen transparency and reproducibility. Detailed Boolean search strings, database selection (Web of Science SSCI), and the review timeframe (2015–2024) are now clearly reported. The study selection process is described in greater detail, including four exclusion gates, three inclusion criteria, an inductive coding procedure, and interrater reliability analysis using Cohen’s kappa (κ = 0.808, 95% CI = 0.70–0.93). A PRISMA 2020 flow diagram has been included to document the screening and inclusion process. The Results section has been refined for clarity and organization, with clearer categorization of theoretical frameworks, project types, technologies, and targeted language skills. The rationale for adopting a descriptive and narrative synthesis approach—and for not conducting a meta-analysis—has been explicitly justified due to heterogeneity in study designs, outcome measures, and reporting practices. The Discussion and Conclusion sections have been substantially revised to moderate claims, reduce overlap with the Results, and clearly distinguish interpretation from description. Limitations of the review are now explicitly acknowledged, and implications for future research are articulated with greater methodological and theoretical precision. No changes were made to the author list. No additional datasets or code were added beyond those already available in the referenced repositories. The Abstract has been rewritten to adopt a more academic tone, reduce repetition, and align claims consistently with the evidence presented. The Introduction has been revised to more explicitly articulate the research gap, emphasizing the absence of a comprehensive systematic synthesis that integrates theoretical frameworks, technology-supported project types, language skills, and pedagogical implications within technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBBLL). The Methods section has been expanded to strengthen transparency and reproducibility. Detailed Boolean search strings, database selection (Web of Science SSCI), and the review timeframe (2015–2024) are now clearly reported. The study selection process is described in greater detail, including four exclusion gates, three inclusion criteria, an inductive coding procedure, and interrater reliability analysis using Cohen’s kappa (κ = 0.808, 95% CI = 0.70–0.93). A PRISMA 2020 flow diagram has been included to document the screening and inclusion process. The Results section has been refined for clarity and organization, with clearer categorization of theoretical frameworks, project types, technologies, and targeted language skills. The rationale for adopting a descriptive and narrative synthesis approach—and for not conducting a meta-analysis—has been explicitly justified due to heterogeneity in study designs, outcome measures, and reporting practices. The Discussion and Conclusion sections have been substantially revised to moderate claims, reduce overlap with the Results, and clearly distinguish interpretation from description. Limitations of the review are now explicitly acknowledged, and implications for future research are articulated with greater methodological and theoretical precision. No changes were made to the author list. No additional datasets or code were added beyond those already available in the referenced repositories. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Muthmainnah Muthmainnah See the authors' detailed response to the review by Ahmad Ridho Rojabi READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Technology-enhanced learning has been a persistent topic in education as it engages students ( Munaro et al., 2021 ) and encourages teachers in designing innovative learning environments ( Garib, 2023 ). However, while technology is widely adopted in educational contexts, its application does not always lead to meaningful learning, particularly in language education ( Lee, 2022 ). In response to this issue, Project-based language learning (PBLL) — a constructivist, student-centered approach — has emerged as a promising framework that emphasizes real-world, authentic projects to foster deeper learning. Within PBLL, the integration of technology has the potential to enhance engagement, foster collaboration, and promote the practical use of language in authentic contexts. Prior research has explored various aspects of technology-enhanced language learning (TELL) ( Ahmadi, 2018 ; Golonka et al., 2012 ), and studies have examined how tools like virtual reality, chatbots, and adaptive learning systems can support language acquisition ( Bahari, 2024 ; Palanisamy, 2024 ). Yet, these studies are often fragmented, focusing on individual tools or isolated pedagogical outcomes without offering a consolidated understanding of how technology and PBLL intersect. Although individual technologies and language teaching approaches have been extensively studies, there is a lack of comprehensive analysis that systematically investigates how technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) is being implemented, what technologies are being used, what skills are being developed, and which theoretical frameworks underpin these practices. This absence of synthesized overview limits educators and researchers the ability to make informed decisions about the effective integration of technology into PBLL contexts. Despite the rapid increase of TELL and PBLL studies, the intersection of the two domains remains underexplores. Existing research tends to examine individual technologies or isolated pedagogical outcomes rather than providing an integrated understanding of how technology is operationalized within PBLL context. Despite the rapid growth of technology-enhanced language learning and project-based pedagogy, no prior systematic review to date has comprehensively mapped the theoretical foundations, project typologies, technological tools, language-learning outcomes, and pedagogical implications of TEPBLL over the past decade. To address this gap, this review is guided by the following research questions: (1) What is the nature of published research on TEPBLL? (2) What theoretical frameworks underpin TEPBLL research? (3) What types of projects and technologies are used in TEPBLL practices? (4) What language skills or knowledge areas are reported to be enhanced through TEPBLL? (5) What implications for research and practice emerge from existing studies? The concept of technology-enhanced project based language learning Technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) is an innovative approach to education that incorporates the use of projects in learning a second language and technology in the authentic use of the second and/or foreign language. This approach involves the use of modern technology tools and platforms to complete project-based assignments that involve the use of oral and written language, innovatively created to enable technical, collaborative, and real-life assignments ( Dooly et al., 2021 ; Syzenko & Diachkova, 2020 ). TEPBLL consequently delineates the possibilities for student engagement in 21st-century knowledge, skills, and competencies in project-based language learning through technology-enhanced tasks and activities that enhance learning experiences ( Dooly et al., 2021 ). In PBLL, the project’s objective is authentic and the target audience for its result is real because it is relevant to circumstances outside of the classroom. This enables educators to develop engaging learning environments that enhance students’ creative thinking, innovation, problem-solving abilities, and communication skills ( Sun & Yang, 2013 ; Syzenko & Diachkova, 2020 ). As a theory, TEPBLL holds that learners are more likely to acquire a second language when such learning is a by-product of the need to use a target language for meaningful tasks and purposes. Project-based language learning via technology, namely TEPBLL, allows for the effective use of technology in facilitating language acquisition which can enable students to achieve efficient verbal communication in real-life situations, as supported by Nur et al. (2022) and Syzenko & Diachkova (2020) . Overall, TEPBLL is a teaching strategy that integrates technology into project-based learning environments, aimed at effectively and meaningfully improving students’ language abilities, critical thinking skills and digital literacy. Methods This study adhered to a three-stage procedure consisting of literature research, article screening, and data analysis, in accordance with PRISMA 2020 checklist guidelines ( Fikria et al., 2025c ). Search strategy The Web of Science (WoS) database was selected because of its rigorous indexing standards and wide coverage of SSCI journals, following prior systematic reviews (e.g. Su & Zou, 2020 ; Zou et al., 2019 ), the search was restricted to SSCI-indexed empirical research to ensure quality and methodological transparency. The exact search string used in Web of Science with Boolean search syntax, was TS = ((“project-based language learning” AND technology) AND (“English language learning” OR EFL)). Filters were applied to include SSCI journal articles published between 2015 and 2024. The search was conducted in November 2024, yielding 319 records. Inclusion and exclusion criteria Four gates of exclusion criteria were applied to ensure relevance to TEPBLL. Articles were excluded if they were: a review articles, editorials, and viewpoints; unrelated to project-based language learning; not employing any technology within the PBLL framework; using technology solely for automated scoring or assessment. We included articles that: were empirical studies, integrated technology into project-based language learning, and provided clear description of the technology and learning activity used. After removing ineligible items across all screening stages, 31 studies met all criteria and were included in the final analysis. The PRISMA flow diagram ( Figure 1 ) summarizes the identification, screening, and inclusion process. Coding process and data synthesis A bottom-up approach was adopted to ensure an inductive and data-driven analysis. Two researchers independently reviewed the 31 articles and coded them using five guiding questions developed for this review. The coding process involved three process: initial extraction, grouping by similarity, iterative refinement. Initial extraction involved identifying and summarizing relevant information from each study, including theoretical frameworks, project types, technologies used, targeted language skills, and reported implications. Grouping by similarity was then carried out by categorizing the extracted data according to conceptual resemblance, supported by the creation of dataset tables for systematic comparison ( Fikria et al., 2025a ). Finally, iterative refinement was conducted through repeated discussions among the researchers to review, adjust, validate the coding categories until consensus was achieved regarding category definitions and interpretations. To ensure reliability, two researchers mutually coded three articles selected at random and then discussed and compared codes and came down to fine-tune the articles until both readers had a similar understanding of the selected articles as well as the coding frame work before they were allowed to self-code the rest of the selected articles. In this process, both the researchers always remembered that which we are going to code should be the actual meanings of the articles and then they read the articles again where they simply summarized what those articles described in terms of the theoretical frameworks, technologies, research findings and implications and then only coded them. Subsequently, the labels were grouped and categorized into groups of similarity and subdivided as necessary with extra caution. For example, create VR video using presentation, practice, and production procedure ( Shi et al., 2024 ), students determine their own project, collected data, and discussed the data ( Hsieh et al., 2022 ), students also synthesized data and conclusions ( Tanaka, 2023 ) were coded as a ‘student activity’. If there was any disagreement regarding some aspect of the data, an analysis of the results was conducted by discussion with the third researcher. Interrater reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa (κ), yielding κ = 0.808 ( Fikria et al., 2025b ), 95% CI = 0.70–0.93, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement ( Landis & Koch, 1977 ). Due to heterogeneity across the studies—particularly in research designs, outcome measures, assessment tools, and reporting standards—a meta-analysis was not feasible. Only a small number of studies (n = 6) reported statistical information that could be converted into standardized effect sizes, and reporting was inconsistent. Therefore, a descriptive and narrative synthesis approach was adopted to summarize: the nature of TEPBLL publications; the theoretical frameworks applied; the project types and technologies utilized; the language skills and knowledge addressed, and the pedagogical implications reported. Results The findings section consists of the nature of published research on TEPBLL, exploring the framework theories covering TEPBLL, the type of projects used in TEPBLL, type of language knowledge and skills that could be promoted by TEPBLL, implications derived upon the application of TEPBLL, and discussion on the steps involved in conducting TEPBLL in all contexts. The flow chart in Figure 1 portrays the research and selection of eligible studies. The initial research generated total of 319 articles. After checking duplication, it remains 319 articles to be identified for title and abstract screening. 37 full-text were included for further analysis. 31 of them met the eligibility criteria that were included in the study. Due to high heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of quantitative metrics, a meta-analysis was not attempted. Instead, descriptive and narrative synthesis approach was used to summarize research trends. The nature of published research on TEPBLL Research in technology enhanced project-based language learning has been gaining a stable trend in past decades, with a notable increase of publication in 2022 ( Figure 2 ). Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. Figure 2. Publication date. The 31 studies was published across 21 SSCI-indexed journals, with System publishing the highest number (four articles), followed by Journal of Research on technology in Education and Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching (three each). Most studies (87%) were categorized under Education Educational research, followed by Linguistics (38.7%), with a few scattered across Communication and other Social Science domains. This trends showed that researchers from all areas were capturing TEPBLL astounding ( Table 1 ). Table 1. Journals. No Name of SSCI journals Number of published articles 1 System 4 2 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 3 3 Journal of Research on Technology in Education 3 4 Australian Journal of Educational Technology 2 5 Education and Information Technology 2 6 TESOL Quarterly 2 7 Australian Journal of Adult Learning 1 8 Education and Training 1 9 Educational Technology Society 1 10 English for Specific Purposes 1 11 English in Education 1 12 Interactive Learning Environments 1 13 Internet and Higher Education 1 14 RELC Journal 1 15 Research in Science Technological Education 1 16 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1 17 Journal of Computing in Higher Education 1 18 Sage Open 1 19 International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 1 20 Language Learning Technology 1 21 Technical Communication 1 Total 31 Approximately 61% of the authors were from Asia, followed by the USA, Europe, Australia and Oceania ( Table 1 ). Among all affiliated regions ( Table 2 ), the USA and Taiwan invested almost one-fourth of the publications, while China held 16%, demonstrating the significance of these regions’ researchers on the topic. It is important to highlight that this result only reflects the state of empirical research published in SSCI-indexed journals that applied technology-enhanced project-based language learning. Table 2. Authors' affiliations. Area Regions Record count Asia Taiwan 8 China 5 Japan 2 South Korea 2 Thailand 2 Iran 2 Malaysia 1 Oman 1 Turkey 1 USA USA 8 Australia Australia 2 Europe Spain 3 Austria 1 Russia 1 New Zealand New Zealand 1 Conceptual frameworks Further analysis of the results highlighted that the study involved five major categories of theoretical frameworks or concepts, as outlined in Table 3 , encompassing social constructivism, sociocultural theory, incidental vocabulary learning, communicative language learning, and self-determination theory. These categories were developed by physically taking on a piece of paper, noting the frameworks or concepts discussed in the papers, and then looking for similar sets. As mentioned earlier, there are two broad classifications of TEPBLL theory: social constructivism and sociocultural theory. According to social constructivism, learners are actively engaged in interactions as developers of knowledge ( Vygotsky, 1980 ). When social constructivism was proposed, some of the major concepts that fell under this school of thought were virtual reality project-based learning, experiential teaching approaches, digital story-telling projects, collaborative video projects, collaborative digital writing. Table 3. Conceptual framework of research on TEPBLL. Conceptual frameworks/theories Research Social constructivism ○ Virtual reality project-based learning ○ Experiential teaching approach ○ Digital story telling project ○ Collaborative video projects ○ Collaborative digital writing ( Belwal et al., 2021 ; Chan, 2022 ; Dooly & Sadler, 2016 ; Fan, 2024 ; Garib, 2023 ; Hsieh et al., 2022 ; Huang, 2021 ; Javier Avila-Cabrera & Corral Esteban, 2021 ; Konieczny & Eckert, 2022 ; Shi et al., 2024 ; Tatzl, 2015 ; Tseng & Yeh, 2019 ; Wu et al., 2022 ) Sociocultural theory ○ Collaborative online learning ○ Collaborative project-based learning ○ Digital video creation ○ Virtual exchange project ○ Scaffolding ( Angeles Mestre-Segarra & Ruiz-Garrido, 2022 ; Chu et al., 2017 ; Dugartsyrenova & Sardegna, 2019 ; Kato et al., 2023 ; Konieczny & Eckert, 2022 ; Mohamadi, 2018 ; Nishioka, 2016 ; Wu et al., 2022 ; Yao, 2022 ; H. C. Yeh & Fu, 2023 ) Incidental vocabulary learning ( Avci & Adiguzel, 2017 ; Tatzl, 2015 ; H.-C. Yeh et al., 2020 ) Communicative language learning ( Avci & Adiguzel, 2017 ; Dooly & Sadler, 2016 ; Kato et al., 2023 ; Owens & Hite, 2022 ) Self-determination theory ( Chu et al., 2017 ; Greenblatt & McDonald, 2022 ; Tanaka, 2023 ) Vygotsky’s social constructivism ( Vygotsky, 1980 ), which claims that learners participate in knowledge construction through interaction with receiving assistance, was cited most often in the literature. In technology-enhanced project-based language learning, learners used technology — Virtual Reality ( Chan, 2022 ; Lin & Wang, 2021 ; Shi et al., 2024 ; Sun Joo & Lee Jin, 2024 ), telecollaborative ( Boardman & Hovland, 2022 ; Fan, 2024 ; Nami & Asadnia, 2024 ), digital story telling ( Fan, 2024 ; Nami & Asadnia, 2024 ; Nishioka, 2016 ) — as a tool to interact with the development of the knowledge being pursued as learners engaged each other synchronously and asynchronously. Similarly, when learners were instructed to collaboratively work on a group assignment, they relied reciprocally on each other ( Angeles Mestre-Segarra & Ruiz-Garrido, 2022 ; Avci & Adiguzel, 2017 ; Huang, 2021 ; Owens & Hite, 2022 ). When two individuals changed their language in search of compliance to cooperate and avoid misunderstanding in case of a breakdown, meaning negotiation occurred when there was repetition of the broken-down meaning, correction, or asking for clarification. The second most often cited concept was the underlying sociocultural theory, which focused on social and cultural activities and significance of semantic features rather than the formal features of language ( Angeles Mestre-Segarra & Ruiz-Garrido, 2022 ; Chu et al., 2017 ; Dugartsyrenova & Sardegna, 2019 ; Kato et al., 2023 ; Konieczny & Eckert, 2022 ; Mohamadi, 2018 ; Nishioka, 2016 ; Wu et al., 2022 ; Yao, 2022 ; Yeh & Fu, 2023 ). Some of the constructs under the sociocultural view included supporting technology-enhanced project-based language learning activities, such as collaborative online learning, collaborative project-based learning, digital video creation, virtual exchange project, and scaffolding. In collaborative learning, scaffolding is employed to allow high achievers to guide low achievers in completing complex tasks as a team. This scaffolding occurs in inclusive classrooms: the student with disabilities (SWDs) have the opportunity to feel creative, expand their ideas to global audiences, and increase their literacy skills by collaborating with their peers which is student without disabilities (SWODs) ( Boardman & Hovland, 2022 ). The review also showcases three concepts related to language learning: incidental vocabulary learning, communicative language learning, and self-determination theory. The first construct is about incidental vocabulary learning, which implies that learners acquire vocabulary without any prior plan. As Nami & Asadnia (2024) found in her research on digital story telling (DST). She asserts that DST may promote incidental vocabulary acquisition when learners search for or create multimedia resources to illustrate the practical applications of the learned vocabulary or when the word under focus is used in peer-made stories. The second is communicative language learning, which Avci & Adiguzel (2017) involves the concept of authentic material using WhatsApp messenger and has been proven to enhance communicative skills and vocabulary knowledge. The third is self-determination theory, which implies a boost of motivation and self-efficacy from engagement in physical activity, one of which is project-based language learning. Supporting this claim, Chan (2022) proved that the use of virtual reality could positively boost students’ motivation. Overall, most research on TEPBLL has a solid theoretical foundation, and future implications for TEPBLL could combine two or more conceptual frameworks to promote novelty. Types of projects and effectiveness of TEPBLL Theoretically, a strong PBL course is characterized by a cycle of process and product focus, at least partially defined by students, spanning a certain duration that is not limited to a particular class. It also promotes the natural integration of skills: technology and communication skills, are expected to have a dual responsibility of language and content acquisition, ask students to work in groups and also individually, expect students to take some degree of their own learning responsibility through gathering, analyzing, and disseminating of information from target language resources, leading to teachers and students acquiring new roles and responsibilities, delivering a concrete final outcome to a wider populace, and end with the students’ comments on the process and the outcome ( Dressler et al., 2020 ). The 31 coded articles had identified seven big umbrellas of project-based language learning type, details exposed in Table 4 . Firstly, the total of eight papers applied telecollaborative project. Through this type of project, students could use typical technologies such as Canvas Website, Wikipedia, e-writingforum, Voxopop, Wimba Voice, Talkshoe, Padlet, Wechat. All these technologies were employed to support project-based language learning using the Canvas website to trigger communication in STEM ( Owens & Hite, 2022 ), Wikipedia to boost motivation ( Chu et al., 2017 ) and teching liberal arts ( Konieczny & Eckert, 2022 ), integration of Voxopop, Wimba Voice, Talkshoe ( Dugartsyrenova & Sardegna, 2019 ) and WeChat ( Wu et al., 2022 ) to enhance intercultural awareness, collaboration between Facebook, Youtube, Padlet and Google classroom to promote ecological perspective ( Hsieh et al., 2022 ), e-writingforum to support collaborative learning ( Mohamadi, 2018 ), and Industrial Tech to gain engagement during the consultancy project ( Belwal et al., 2021 ). Table 4. Project type in TEPBLL. Project type Name of system Foci of TEPBLL Research Telecollaborative project Canvas Website Wikipedia e-writingforum Voxopop Wimba Voice Talkshoe Padlet Wechat Industrial tech Communication in STEM Writing Intercultural Speaking Ecology Engagement ( Belwal et al., 2021 ; Chu et al., 2017 ; Dugartsyrenova & Sardegna, 2019 ; Hsieh et al., 2022 ; Konieczny & Eckert, 2022 ; Mohamadi, 2018 ; Owens & Hite, 2022 ; Wu et al., 2022 ) Digital Story Telling project SlideShare Inshot iMovie PhotoStory PowerDirector Schoology (LMS) Vocabulary Content knowledge Reading Writing Speaking Engagement ( Boardman & Hovland, 2022 ; Fan, 2024 ; Nami & Asadnia, 2024 ; Nishioka, 2016 ) Virtual reality project Spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR) Immersive virtual reality (iVR) Virtual Interpreting Practice (VIP) app Assemblr (AR) Virtual Business Professional (VBP) Google Tour Creator Creative and innovative thinking Oral English Skill Engagement Motivation Cultural awareness Communication Self-efficacy ( Angeles Mestre-Segarra & Ruiz-Garrido, 2022 ; Chan, 2022 ; Lin & Wang, 2023 ; Owens & Hite, 2022 ; Shi et al., 2024 ; Sun Joo & Lee Jin, 2024 ) Video making Project Google Docs EverCam PowerDirector Movie Maker YouTube Web 2.0 Writing Grammar Vocabulary Speaking Writing (translation) ( Garib, 2023 ; Greenblatt & McDonald, 2022 ; Nishioka, 2016 ; H. C. Yeh, 2018 ; H. C. Yeh & Fu, 2023 ) Mobile instant messaging-based Project Online discussion forum WeChat Whatsapp Climate education Intercultural Communication Vocabulary ( Avci & Adiguzel, 2017 ; Nami & Asadnia, 2024 ; Yao, 2022 ) Video Conferencing Project Machinima Skype Instil Habitual Communication Intercultural ( Dooly & Sadler, 2016 ; Kato et al., 2023 ) Audio-visual Translation project SubESPSKills Moodle Listening Writing Dubbing ( Javier Avila-Cabrera & Corral Esteban, 2021 ) Second, three studies applied the digital story telling project (DST). Boardman & Hovland (2022) could engage student with disabilities through DST using the notion of scaffold learning with their SWOD peers. He consented to the literacy skills and found that SWD could expand their ideas and express their creativity through collaboration with their peers. Further, Nami & Asadnia (2024) adopting the multimodalities to create DST, she combines animated DS, Game-based DS, Social media DS, Synchronous collaborative DS and Micro DS to enhance incidental and intentional vocabulary learning. Fan (2024) asserted that DST can facilitate content knowledge, language proficiency and academic competence. In the context of medical-related majors, Fan explored DST to encourage students to develop content related to their context, composing a written text, making an oral script, and doing a voice over to their video presentation. The final result showed that students were more aware of rhetorical, linguistic and inter-semiotic choices. Third, six studies focused on a virtual reality project employing Spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR), Immersive virtual reality (iVR), Virtual Interpreting Practice (VIP) app, Assemblr (AR), Virtual Business Professional (VBP), Google Tour Creator. Spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR) allows students to co-create content for travel books. Students possibly choose content and create a layout for their written work and then uploaded to YouTube, this kind of activity is empirically foster creativity and curiosity ( Sun Joo & Lee Jin, 2024 ). Similarly, Immersive virtual reality (iVR) was used to enhance students’ oral English skills and engagement. Shi et al. (2024) employed iVR to create VR videos by inputting the dialogue script, building the dialogue setting, sharing it through the VR platform, practicing and recording the dialogue into the VR system. Another study on VR involved Virtual Interpreting Practice (VIP) application to foster interpreting skills. Another system called Assemblr (AR) to design a three-fold pamphlet QR code contains 3D interactive content of university tours for freshmen. Lin & Wang (2023) indicated the effect of using AR was on learner’s perception of creativity and boosted their motivation towards learn with technology. Thereupon, Virtual Business Professional (VBP) was employed in the study of Angeles Mestre-Segarra & Ruiz-Garrido (2022) and empirically promoted language-content communication and fostered intercultural awareness through collaborative online international learning. The last system under review is Google Tour Creator. Lin & Wang (2021) assigned participants to create virtual tours platform to introduce their hometown to an international student. This study confirmed that the VR project could facilitate students’ efficacy in creative thinking, and that technical skills also benefit their English communication skills. Fourth, the gaining attention in TEPBLL area is conducting video-making project. Five studies employed TEPBLL with the aid of Google Docs, EverCam, PowerDirector, Movie Maker, YouTube, and Web 2.0 platform to their project. The collaboration between Movie Maker and Google Docs empirically enhanced students’ communicative performance by creating public service announcement (PSA) videos ( Greenblatt & McDonald, 2022 ). Nishioka (2016) conducted research on collaborative DST using a Web 2.0 based application. The results showed that learners strategically used their first language, grammatical terminology, and private speech in the collaborative knowledge construction process during the project. To promote intra-cultural understanding, Yeh & Fu (2023) research has been conducted on video creation using Power Director which implies the improvement of English communication and deepens cultural understanding. Fifth, three studies on mobile instant messaging-based projects suggested online discussion forum , WeChat , and Whatsapp platforms. The study of Nami & Asadnia (2024) used a multimodal platform of Whatsapp, slideshare, blogpage, inshot and Instagram to implement word contextualization, and story presentation through a learner-generated digital story telling (DST) project. The results indicated that DST design, development, presentation, and evaluation positively enhanced learners’ perceptions towards DST-based vocabulary learning. Avci & Adiguzel (2017) further researched the use of Whatsapp to foster communication skills and found that mobile instant messaging had a positive effect on student performance. Yao (2022) conducted research on climate education using online discussion forums, which increased learners’ willingness to combat climate change. Sixth, the studies focus on the Video Conferencing project with the aid of Machinima ( Dooly & Sadler, 2016 ) and Skype ( Kato et al., 2023 ) platform, focusing on speaking skills. The last is an Audio-visual Translation project employs SubESPSKills and Moodle. Javier Avila-Cabrera & Corral Esteban (2021) proposed SubESPSKills innovative project on subtitling tasks in an English for Specific Purposes class to improve written production skills. The results indicated improvements in writing production skills and some language knowledge (e.g., words, structure, etc.). Furthermore, the language skill and knowledge along with student and teacher activities of TEPBLL also portrayed in Table 5 . Table 5. Language skills and technologies in TEPBLL. Language skills and knowledge Technologies Student activities Teacher activities Speaking Audio Visual Translation tool (AVT) Listening task, writing essays, reading exercises and creative dubbing assignment. Supervising and checking the project process iMovie Students take part in 3-minute group video assignment that were associated to the learning context of their classroom textbook. Offering assistance when necessary Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) Create VR video using presentation, practice, and production procedure. Supervise and check the project process Virtual Interpreting Practice (VIP) Students is given an interpreting task. Each task (source text/audio/video) is 2 until 8 minutes long or about 250–350 words/400–700 characters. Teacher played the audio files of pre-recorded speeches for in-class practice and monitoring student activity Google Classroom Content development, written text, multimodal elements, oral script and voice over narration, tech training, presentation. Lead group discussion, guide students Skype Dual nations students made pairs and communicate. Monitoring Listening Audio Visual Translation tool (AVT) Listening comprehension exercises, composing reverse subtitle for assigned video. Not stated Reading Moodle Reading exercise for reverse subtitling. Explaining the use of Moodle Writing Wikipedia Enhance an already-existing Wikipedia page or write a new one about course-related subject. Assess Wikipedia articles published by students Audio Visual Translation tool (AVT) Listening comprehension exercises, composing reverse subtitle for assigned video. Organizing stages for project activities Google Tour Creator Student created virtual tours using Google Tour Creator to showcase their hometown to a global audience. Guide student to do the project Vocabulary WhatsApp/Telegram Discussing through chat on designing multi-modal digital story, development, and presentation. Reducing group conflict Creative and Critical Thinking Spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR) While using SVVR technology to produce online multimedia to complement their written work – which would then be posted on YouTube – groups were required to select content and design layout for their chapter first. Make notes, recorded writing progress each group, provide feedback Google tour creator (VR) Create multiple VR scenes and create a tour on the desktop with Google’s street-view technology. Guide student to do the project Intercultural Awareness WeChat Students were encouraged to use English to communicate their ideas about any topics based on their interest. Make a group on WeChat and give comment PowerDirector Create video introducing their local cultures. Correcting student’s error Padlet and Facebook Student-produced presentation slides and videos doing joint project related to SDGs. Supervising the collaboration process Content Knowledge Canvas Students collaborated to build a model of the water cycle and its potential relationship to air pollution. Second, students composed/write a response to the problem. Established and presented the project and driving question were established Overall, from the above results, it can be found that the learners had an overall positive attitude towards TEPBLL and their learning outcomes were also satisfactory. The review results in the same nuance support Dressler et al. (2020) and Casal & Bikowski (2020) findings about the benefit of project-based language learning using technology that improves language skills (speaking, listening, writing, reading, vocabulary acquisition), increase intercultural awareness, and triggers creative and critical thinking. Implications of TEPBLL Based on the analysis the 31 articles, we classified and briefly summarized the articles from three dimensions: language acquisition, teacher’s roles, and potential research on TEPBLL. In the language acquisition dimension, the previously mentioned literature showed that task design and students’ technological pedagogical content knowledge had great impacts on TEPBLL. Teachers and coordinators in the language program perceived that the content being taught has implications for student motivation in learning language ( Nanni, 2021 ), higher levels of motivation and acquisition of relevant skills ( Konieczny & Eckert, 2022 ), and expanding learning experiences and effectiveness, making learning a joyful and pervasive process, improving learners’ autonomy, and critical thinking, and increasing their motivation and self-confidence ( Chan, 2022 ). In the teacher roles dimension, the literature indicates that teachers are urged to inaugurate TEPBLL activities by describing technological knowledge and learning objectives to students. As for teacher facilitation, it is also recommended that the teacher should fully understand their students’ perception of language proficiency to set up content and language-related objectives ( Sun Joo & Lee Jin, 2024 ) the same nuance asserted by Jao et al. (2023) that the digital story-telling has its level, so that the teacher should assign the project by their level of language proficiency. Another recommendation is that teachers present practical tutorials and provide fruitful tips for the project. Moreover, teachers should assign specific roles and responsibilities to each group member to ensure everyone participates ( Huang, 2021 ), the teacher sets up staged project tasks and provides progressive feedback, since real-time corrective feedback sustains learner motivation. Additionally, this review asserts five potential topics for further exploration of future research: (1) the exploration of potential technology used for TEPBLL that suites inclusive classrooms ( Boardman & Hovland, 2022 ); (2) possible influences of students’ emotional states on their project performance ( Shi et al., 2024 ); (3) facilitating content knowledge and language proficiency using robots ( Fan, 2024 ); (4) explore the challenges and limitations faced by students in the process of collaborative video-making to refine the process ( Yeh et al., 2020 ); and (5) a higher number of students may help to generalize the results ( Mohamadi, 2018 ). Discussion The review results indicated that certain studies have integrated technology tools into PBLL and confirmed that creative student output is unattainable through conventional courses. The incorporation of technology into project-based language learning was the principal factor contributing to the efficacy of TEPBLL in enhancing language knowledge, as it heightened students’ engagement and intrinsic motivation, stimulated creative and critical thinking, fostered collaboration, refined essential communication skills, and exposed intercultural understanding, ultimately leading to successful learning outcomes ( Avci & Adiguzel, 2017 ; Garib, 2023 ; Greenblatt & McDonald, 2022 ; Hsieh et al., 2022 ; Nami & Asadnia, 2024 ). The results of our review indicated that the majority of learners expressed positive attitudes towards TEPBLL ( H.-W. Huang, 2021 ; Javier Avila-Cabrera & Corral Esteban, 2021 ; Lin & Wang, 2021 ). In this respect, TEPBLL is best understood not as a distinct instructional method, but as a pedagogical configuration in which technology, task design, and social interaction jointly shape learning processes. Across the reviewed literature, technology (i.e., Virtual Reality) also regarded as a rejuvenating and relaxing learning experience that benefited students’ English skills, as the project was engaging and enabled autonomy. Although it is noteworthy that students with high creative self-efficacy tend to feel less pressure than those with low creative self-efficacy, the result of their EMI aspect (i.e. enjoyment, perceive competence, perceived choice, usefulness), yet the post-test score showed no difference ( Lin & Wang, 2021 ). In this way, technology-enhanced PBLL (i.e. immersive VR) consistently reported promotes social engagement by participating and interacting in the VR environment with their peers ( Shi et al., 2024 ). It was also reported that TEPBLL could enrich subject-specific vocabulary ( Dugartsyrenova & Sardegna, 2019 ; Javier Avila-Cabrera & Corral Esteban, 2021 ; Tatzl, 2015 ), resulting in active engagement in communicative activities among students with high degree of autonomy and motivation ( Greenblatt & McDonald, 2022 ). Since PBLL offers a hands-on approach to a real work-life situations, virtual interpreting practice (VIP) allows students to experience and practice their interpreting competency in authentic and immersive interpreting practice. Moreover, students generally had a positive attitude towards VIP for interpreting learning ( Chan, 2022 ). The reviewed studies indicate that technologies such as audio-visual translation (AVT), video-editing software (e.g., iMovie), immersive virtual reality, virtual interpreting practice (VIP) tools, and video conferencing platforms (e.g., Skype) have been frequently used within TEPBLL context and are often associated with reported improvements in learners’ speaking practice. As described in the literature, these technologies appear to facilitate opportunities for interaction, collaboration, and authentic communication by providing socially mediated and interactive learning environments (see Table 5 ). Given the rapid evolution o f educational technologies, this review does not advocate for the adoption of specific tools. Instead, it suggests that future research should move beyond tool-centred comparisons towards analyses of technological affordances — such as interactivity, multimodality, and social presence — and how these affordances interact with pedagogical goals and learner characteristics ( Lin & Wang, 2021 ; Shi et al., 2024 ). Such an approach may offer a more sustainable analytical framework than focusing on individual technologies that may quickly become obsolete. Importantly, the review also identifies contextual and pedagogical constrains that shape the outcomes of TEPBLL implementations. Mohamadi (2018) , for instance, conducted a comparative study of PBL and e-PBL of English idiom knowledge and reported that students faced a challenge in using technology because of the quality of the Internet, which caused them to not enjoy the same benefits as the non-tech group. Similarly, Nishioka (2016) investigated a Web 2.0-based collaborative digital story-telling project but found that most proficient learners showed dissatisfaction in collaborating with less proficient learners, as it took a longer time to complete the task. However, Nishioka also suggested that language educators could boost the motivation and engagement of highly proficient learners by highlighting how collaborative learning with peers facilitates the acquisition of the target language within the project. Conclusion Overall, this systematic review examined 31 SSCI-indexed empirical studies and found five conceptual frameworks in TEPBLL area including social constructivism theory, sociocultural theory, incidental vocabulary learning, communicative language learning and self-determination theory. Seven project types involving telecollaborative project, digital story-telling, virtual reality, video making, mobile instant messaging-based, video conferencing and audio-visual translation projects were promoted after the enhancement of TEPBLL in the classroom. Thus, eight language skills and knowledge would be improved after the application of TEPBLL: speaking skills, listening skills, reading skills, writing skills, vocabulary knowledge, creative and critical thinking skills, intercultural awareness, and content knowledge. We also discussed the recommendations of previous studies in detail and considered possible research topics for future research. Thus, it is crucial to note that this review focused on identifying a limited number of empirical works that employed technology to support the process of language learning and that were published in SSCI; nevertheless, several significant publications on TEPBLL were not covered in this review. For example, Dressler et al. (2020) integrated content and language learning in project-based learning implies the concept of CLIL-infused TEPBLL, which supports vocational or content-related majors conducting PBLL. However, the review foci are the theories that were used in the empirical studies on TEPBLL or the technologies aimed at language enhancement, and the implications for future research. However, there are certain limitations of this review that might be considered in the following ways in future research: (1) The current study used a limited number of articles from a single resource, that is Web of Science, to maintain the quality of the review. Future research would benefit from drawing on a wider range of data sources, including non-SSCI journals, conference proceeding; as well as from. (2) Future studies may consider examining TEPBLL from diverse pedagogical and disciplinary perspectives. Ethics and consent No ethics and consent were required. Data availability Dataset of Systematic Literature Review of Technology Enhanced Project-based Language Learning at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15792672 ( Fikria et al., 2025a ) PRISMA Checklist for ‘A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice’. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15792956 ( Fikria et al., 2025c ) Data associated with this article is provided in online repository under the terms of Creative Common Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the valuable support provided by Universitas Negeri Surabaya in this project. References Ahmadi MR: The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review. Int. J. Res. Engl. Educ. 2018; 3 : 115–125. Publisher Full Text Angeles Mestre-Segarra M, Ruiz-Garrido MF: Examining students’ reflections on a collaborative online international learning project in an ICLHE context. System. 2022; 105 : 102714. Publisher Full Text Avci H, Adiguzel T: A Case Study on Mobile-Blended Collaborative Learning in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Context. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 2017; 18 (7): 45–58. Publisher Full Text Bahari A: Examining the Impact of Chatbot-Based Language Learning Support, Adaptive Learning Algorithms, and Virtual Reality Language Immersion on EFL Learners’ Language Learning Proficiency and Self-Regulated Learning Skills.2024. Publisher Full Text Belwal R, Belwal S, Sufian AB, et al. : Project-based learning (PBL): outcomes of students’ engagement in an external consultancy project in Oman. Educ. Train. 2021; 63 (3, SI): 336–359. Publisher Full Text Boardman AG, Hovland JB: Student perceptions of project-based learning in inclusive high school language arts. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2022; 28 : 2235–2250. Publisher Full Text Casal JE, Bikowski D: A Framework for Learning With Digital Resources: Applications for Project-Based Language Learning. Beckett GH, Slater T, editors. Global Perspectives on Project-Based Language Learning, Teaching, and Assessment. Routledge; 2020; pp. 167–184. Reference Source Chan VN: Using a virtual reality mobile application for interpreting learning: listening to the students’ voice. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2022; 1–14. Publisher Full Text Chu SKW, Zhang Y, Chen K, et al. : The effectiveness of wikis for project-based learning in different disciplines in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 2017; 33 : 49–60. Publisher Full Text Dooly M, Masats D, Mont M: Launching a Solidarity Campaign: Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning to Promote Entrepreneurial Education and Social Awareness. J. Technol. Sci. Educ. 2021; 11 . Publisher Full Text Dooly M, Sadler R: Becoming Little Scientists: Technologically-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning. Lang. Learn. Technol. 2016; 20 (1): 54–78. Dressler R, Raedler B, Dimitrov K, et al. : Project-Based Learning in the Advanced German Class: Integrated Content and Language Learning.Becket GH, Slater T, editors. Global Perspectives on Project-Based Language Learning, Teaching, and Assessment. Routledge; 2020; pp. 69–84. Dugartsyrenova VA, Sardegna VG: Raising intercultural awareness through voice-based telecollaboration: perceptions, uses, and recommendations. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 2019; 13 (3): 205–220. Publisher Full Text Fan Y-S: Facilitating content knowledge, language proficiency, and academic competence through digital storytelling: Performance and perceptions of first-year medical-related majors. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2024; 56 (2): 129–150. Publisher Full Text Fikria A, Setiawan S, Munir A: Dataset of Systematic Literature Review of Technology Enhanced Project-based Language Learning. Zenodo. 2025a. Publisher Full Text Fikria A, Setiawan S, Munir A: Interrater Reliability Data. Zenodo. 2025b; Publisher Full Text Fikria A, Setiawan S, Munir A: PRISMA checklist for A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice. Zenodo. 2025c. Publisher Full Text Garib A: “Actually, It’s Real Work”: EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology-Assisted Project-Based Language Learning in Lebanon, Libya, and Syria. TESOL Q. 2023; 57 (4): 1434–1462. Publisher Full Text Golonka EM, Bowles AR, Frank VM, et al. : Technologies for Foreign Language Learning: A Review of Technology Types and Their Effectiveness. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2012; 27 : 70–105. Publisher Full Text Greenblatt P, McDonald P: Using Multimodal Public Service Announcement Video Projects as Communicative Language Assessments. RELC J. 2022; 55 : 559–566. Publisher Full Text Hsieh MH, Chuang HH, Albanese D: Investigating student agency and affordances during online virtual exchange projects in an ELF context from an ecological CALL perspective. System. 2022; 109 : 102888. Publisher Full Text Huang H-W: Effects of smartphone-based collaborative vlog projects on EFL learners’ speaking performance and learning engagement. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2021; 37 (6): 18–40. Publisher Full Text Jao CY, Chen CH, Yeh HC: Exploring the effects of cross-cultural collaborating on bilingual digital storytelling on students’ intercultural learning. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023; 32 : 6815–6832. Publisher Full Text Javier Avila-Cabrera J, Corral Esteban A: The project SubESPSKills: Subtitling tasks for students of Business English to improve written production skills. Engl. Specif. Purp. 2021; 63 : 33–44. Publisher Full Text Kato F, Spring R, Mori C: Incorporating project-based language learning into distance learning: Creating a homepage during computer-mediated learning sessions. Lang. Teach. Res. 2023; 27 (3): 621–641. Publisher Full Text Konieczny P, Eckert K: Teaching liberal arts content via Wikipedia page authoring in an English language learning context. Engl. Educ. 2022; 56 (4): 309–324. Publisher Full Text Landis JR, Koch GG: The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics. 1977; 33 (1): 159–174. Publisher Full Text Lee S-M: A systematic review of context-aware technology use in foreign language learning. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2022; 35 (3): 294–318. Publisher Full Text Lin Y-J, Wang H: Using virtual reality to facilitate learners’ creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation in an EFL classroom. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021; 26 (4): 4487–4505. Publisher Full Text Lin Y-J, Wang H: Applying augmented reality in a university English class: Learners’ perceptions of creativity and learning motivation. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 2023; 17 (2): 291–305. Publisher Full Text Mohamadi Z: Comparative effect of project-based learning and electronic project-based learning on the development and sustained development of English idiom knowledge. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2018; 30 (2): 363–385. Publisher Full Text Munaro AC, Barcelos RH, Francisco Maffezzolli EC, et al. : To Engage or Not Engage? The Features of Video Content on YouTube Affecting Digital Consumer Engagement. J. Consum. Behav. 2021; 20 : 1336–1352. Publisher Full Text Nami F, Asadnia F: Exploring the effect of EFL students’ self-made digital stories on their vocabulary learning. System. 2024; 120 : 103205. Publisher Full Text Nanni A: Educational Entrepreneurship in an Intensive English Program in Thailand: A Case Study. SAGE Open. 2021; 11 (1). Publisher Full Text Nishioka H: Analysing language development in a collaborative digital storytelling project: Sociocultural perspectives. System. 2016; 62 (SI): 39–52. Publisher Full Text Nur S, Ismail A, Nur MS: Project-Based Language Learning With Online Community of Practice From a CALL Perspective.2022. Publisher Full Text Owens AD, Hite RL: Enhancing student communication competencies in STEM using virtual global collaboration project based learning. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2022; 40 (1): 76–102. Publisher Full Text Palanisamy B: Insights Into the Dynamic Relationship Between Technology and Task-Based Language Teaching: A Critical Review. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2024; 23 : 402–420. Publisher Full Text Shi JL, Sitthiworachart J, Hong JC: Supporting project-based learning for students’ oral English skill and engagement with immersive virtual reality. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2024; 29 : 14127–14150. Publisher Full Text Su F, Zou D: Technology-enhanced collaborative language learning: theoretical foundations, technologies, and implications. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2020; 35 (8): 1754–1788. Publisher Full Text Sun Joo C, Lee Jin C: Expanding Horizons: Fostering Creativity and Curiosity through Spherical Video-Based Virtual Reality in Project-Based Language Learning. TESOL Q. 2024; 58 : 1786–1800. Publisher Full Text Sun Y, Yang F-Y: I Help, Therefore, I Learn: Service Learning on Web 2.0 in an EFL Speaking Class. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2013; 28 : 202–219. Publisher Full Text Syzenko A, Diachkova Y: Building Cross-Cultural Competence in a Foreign Language Through Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Learning. Revista Amazonia Investiga. 2020; 9 : 411–418. Publisher Full Text Tanaka M: Motivation, self-construal, and gender in project-based learning. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 2023; 17 (2): 306–320. Publisher Full Text Tatzl D: A Constructionist English Language Teaching Project Based on an Aeronautical Conceptual Design Challenge. Tech. Commun. 2015; 62 (1): 29–47. Tseng S-S, Yeh H-C: Fostering EFL teachers’ CALL Competencies Through Project-based Learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2019; 22 (1): 94–105. Vygotsky LS: Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press; 1980. Wu JG, Teng MF, Miller L: Challenges in a mobile English telecollaborative project: Towards a conceptual model. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2022; 38 (1): 1–19. Publisher Full Text Yao C: A Climate education to Chinese adult learners in an English class with a project based learning method. Aust. J. Adult Learn. 2022; 62 (3): 395–403. Yeh HC: Exploring the perceived benefits of the process of multimodal video making in developing multiliteracies. Lang. Learn. Technol. 2018; 22 (2): 28–37. Yeh HC, Fu JS: Promoting intracultural understanding and language proficiency through video creation: a schema activation perspective. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2023; 57 : 310–324. Publisher Full Text Yeh H-C, Heng L, Tseng S-S: Exploring the impact of video making on students’ writing skills. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2020; 53 (4): 446–456. Publisher Full Text Zhang R, Zou D: Types, purposes, and effectiveness of state-of-the-art technologies for second and foreign language learning. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2020; 35 (4): 696–742. Publisher Full Text Zhou Y, Wei M: Strategies in Technology-Enhanced Language Learning. Stud. Second Lang. Learn. Teach. 2018; 8 : 471–495. Publisher Full Text Zou D, Huang Y, Xie H: Digital game-based vocabulary learning: where are we and where are we going? Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2019; 34 (5-6): 751–777. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 08 Aug 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Language and Literature Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia Ainun Fikria Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Slamet Setiawan Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Ahmad Munir Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This research was supported by Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan, Indonesia. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 27 Dec 2025, 14:775 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165491.2 version 1 Published: 08 Aug 2025, 14:775 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165491.1 Copyright © 2025 Fikria A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Fikria A, Setiawan S and Munir A. A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165491.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 27 Dec 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Wang J. Reviewer Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194301.r447127 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v2#referee-response-447127 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 31 Jan 2026 Jiawei Wang , Universiti Sains Malaysia, George Town, Malaysia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194301.r447127 The manuscript has reached an acceptable standard, but some parts still need improvement. Specific suggestions are as follows: 1. The introduction is still somewhat lengthy, especially the paragraphs on pages 3–4 which contain overlapping information. 2. ... Continue reading READ ALL The manuscript has reached an acceptable standard, but some parts still need improvement. Specific suggestions are as follows: 1. The introduction is still somewhat lengthy, especially the paragraphs on pages 3–4 which contain overlapping information. 2. The conclusion could be further enhanced in terms of theoretical depth. Two points should be emphasized: (1) TEPBLL, as a composite model of "task design + social interaction + multimodal technology," should have a clearer theoretical positioning. (2) Emphasize the potential of TEPBLL for cross-cultural collaborative research. 3. Future research suggestions could include specific methodological aspects, such as a systematic comparison of the causal mechanisms of different PBLL task structures. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: not applicable. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Wang J. Reviewer Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194301.r447127 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v2#referee-response-447127 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Songsiengchai S. Reviewer Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194301.r445310 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v2#referee-response-445310 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 16 Jan 2026 Saifon Songsiengchai , Rajamangala University of Technology, Krungthep, Thailand Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194301.r445310 1. This review is descriptive and narrative and not quantitative in nature. Statistical synthesis, or a meta-analysis, was not planned by this review due to wide variation in the included studies’ designs, measures of outcome, and reporting practice. For ... Continue reading READ ALL 1. This review is descriptive and narrative and not quantitative in nature. Statistical synthesis, or a meta-analysis, was not planned by this review due to wide variation in the included studies’ designs, measures of outcome, and reporting practice. For example, the reviewed studies employ different project designs, technologies, and assessment approaches, making direct statistical comparison inappropriate. 2. This review is a one-time systematic summary with a constant search period, rather than a living systematic review. There is no provision for routine updating or a systematic search strategy. The purpose of the review is to offer an overview of technology-facilitated project-based language learning over time; thus, it also fails to meet the criterion for a living systematic review. For example, the review clearly defines a fixed search timeframe (2015–2024) rather than outlining procedures for continuous or periodic updates. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Teaching, Education, Coaching and Mentoring I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Songsiengchai S. Reviewer Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194301.r445310 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v2#referee-response-445310 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 08 Aug 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rojabi AR. Reviewer Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182132.r406178 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v1#referee-response-406178 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 09 Sep 2025 Ahmad Ridho Rojabi , Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Haji Achmad Siddiq Jember, East Java, East Java, Indonesia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182132.r406178 1. This manuscript addresses the integration of technology and project-based learning in language teaching, which is highly relevant to current educational trends. 2. The introduction does not properly highlight research gaps. The introduction emphasizes "reviewing what exists," but it's unclear ... Continue reading READ ALL 1. This manuscript addresses the integration of technology and project-based learning in language teaching, which is highly relevant to current educational trends. 2. The introduction does not properly highlight research gaps. The introduction emphasizes "reviewing what exists," but it's unclear why a systematic review of TEPBLL is necessary. For example, are previous studies scattered without synthesis? Has the theoretical framework not been drawn up? Has there been no comprehensive review of project types? These points should be highlighted. 3. The method section adheres to PRISMA, increasing credibility as a systematic review. Database clarity and year range: We only used Web of Science (SSCI) from 2015 to 2024. The mention of four exclusion gates and three inclusion rules is significant for validity and transparency. Explained the coding process, which included reading, recording, grouping, and generating categories. Two researchers double-coded and discussed with a third researcher to improve reliability. However, there is some inconsistency in the terminology; for example, "techno collaborations" sounds strange; perhaps they mean technological collaborations. 4. The conclusion indicates that this paper focuses on the theory, technology, and implications of TEPBLL. There is a section with recommendations for future research to guide the reader. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Technology-enhanced language learning, engagement, and social presence. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rojabi AR. Reviewer Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182132.r406178 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v1#referee-response-406178 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Ainun Fikria , Language and Literature Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia 14 Jan 2026 Author Response We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments, as well as for recognizing the relevance and timeliness of the topic. The feedback has been very helpful in ... Continue reading We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments, as well as for recognizing the relevance and timeliness of the topic. The feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity, rigor, and coherence of the manuscript. Our responses to each comment are provided below. Reviewer comment: This manuscript addresses the integration of technology and project-based learning in language teaching, which is highly relevant to current educational trends. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive assessment of the topic’s relevance. The increasing integration of digital technologies in project-based language learning contexts motivated us to undertake this systematic review, and we have maintained a strong focus on contemporary educational practices throughout the manuscript. Reviewer comment: The introduction does not properly highlight research gaps… it is unclear why a systematic review of TEPBLL is necessary. Response: We agree with the reviewer that the research gap needed to be more explicitly articulated. In response, we have revised the Introduction to clearly highlight the necessity of this systematic review. The revised text now explicitly states that: Existing studies on technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) are scattered across contexts, technologies, and educational settings , with limited synthesis. Prior research has not systematically integrated theoretical frameworks , technology-supported project types , and pedagogical implications within a single review. No previous systematic review has comprehensively mapped how different project types and technologies are linked to language skills and learning outcomes. These revisions clarify why a systematic review of TEPBLL is both timely and necessary, and they explicitly position the present study as addressing this gap. Reviewer comment: The method section adheres to PRISMA… However, there is some inconsistency in the terminology; for example, “techno collaborations” sounds strange. Response: We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the methodological rigor of the study, including adherence to PRISMA guidelines, transparent database selection (Web of Science SSCI, 2015–2024), clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the double-coding procedure with a third reviewer to ensure reliability. Regarding terminology, we agree that clarity and consistency are essential. In the revised manuscript, we have reviewed the terminology used throughout the text and replaced ambiguous expressions such as “techno collaborations” with clearer and more standard terms, including “technology-mediated collaboration” or “technology-supported collaboration,” depending on context. This revision improves precision and readability without altering the intended meaning. Reviewer comment: The conclusion indicates that this paper focuses on the theory, technology, and implications of TEPBLL, and includes recommendations for future research. Response: We appreciate this observation. In the revised version, the Conclusion has been further refined to ensure that it clearly synthesizes the key contributions of the review—namely, the theoretical foundations, technology-supported project types, and pedagogical implications of TEPBLL—without overlapping with the Results or Discussion sections. The recommendations for future research have been clarified and aligned with the identified gaps in theory use, methodological consistency, and reporting practices, thereby offering concrete guidance for subsequent studies. We are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have helped us strengthen the articulation of the research gap, improve terminological clarity, and refine the overall structure of the manuscript. We believe that the revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the study. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments, as well as for recognizing the relevance and timeliness of the topic. The feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity, rigor, and coherence of the manuscript. Our responses to each comment are provided below. Reviewer comment: This manuscript addresses the integration of technology and project-based learning in language teaching, which is highly relevant to current educational trends. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive assessment of the topic’s relevance. The increasing integration of digital technologies in project-based language learning contexts motivated us to undertake this systematic review, and we have maintained a strong focus on contemporary educational practices throughout the manuscript. Reviewer comment: The introduction does not properly highlight research gaps… it is unclear why a systematic review of TEPBLL is necessary. Response: We agree with the reviewer that the research gap needed to be more explicitly articulated. In response, we have revised the Introduction to clearly highlight the necessity of this systematic review. The revised text now explicitly states that: Existing studies on technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) are scattered across contexts, technologies, and educational settings , with limited synthesis. Prior research has not systematically integrated theoretical frameworks , technology-supported project types , and pedagogical implications within a single review. No previous systematic review has comprehensively mapped how different project types and technologies are linked to language skills and learning outcomes. These revisions clarify why a systematic review of TEPBLL is both timely and necessary, and they explicitly position the present study as addressing this gap. Reviewer comment: The method section adheres to PRISMA… However, there is some inconsistency in the terminology; for example, “techno collaborations” sounds strange. Response: We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the methodological rigor of the study, including adherence to PRISMA guidelines, transparent database selection (Web of Science SSCI, 2015–2024), clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the double-coding procedure with a third reviewer to ensure reliability. Regarding terminology, we agree that clarity and consistency are essential. In the revised manuscript, we have reviewed the terminology used throughout the text and replaced ambiguous expressions such as “techno collaborations” with clearer and more standard terms, including “technology-mediated collaboration” or “technology-supported collaboration,” depending on context. This revision improves precision and readability without altering the intended meaning. Reviewer comment: The conclusion indicates that this paper focuses on the theory, technology, and implications of TEPBLL, and includes recommendations for future research. Response: We appreciate this observation. In the revised version, the Conclusion has been further refined to ensure that it clearly synthesizes the key contributions of the review—namely, the theoretical foundations, technology-supported project types, and pedagogical implications of TEPBLL—without overlapping with the Results or Discussion sections. The recommendations for future research have been clarified and aligned with the identified gaps in theory use, methodological consistency, and reporting practices, thereby offering concrete guidance for subsequent studies. We are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have helped us strengthen the articulation of the research gap, improve terminological clarity, and refine the overall structure of the manuscript. We believe that the revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the study. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. No financial, professional, or personal relationships exist that could be construed to influence the content, interpretation, or conclusions of this article. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Ainun Fikria , Language and Literature Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia 14 Jan 2026 Author Response We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments, as well as for recognizing the relevance and timeliness of the topic. The feedback has been very helpful in ... Continue reading We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments, as well as for recognizing the relevance and timeliness of the topic. The feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity, rigor, and coherence of the manuscript. Our responses to each comment are provided below. Reviewer comment: This manuscript addresses the integration of technology and project-based learning in language teaching, which is highly relevant to current educational trends. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive assessment of the topic’s relevance. The increasing integration of digital technologies in project-based language learning contexts motivated us to undertake this systematic review, and we have maintained a strong focus on contemporary educational practices throughout the manuscript. Reviewer comment: The introduction does not properly highlight research gaps… it is unclear why a systematic review of TEPBLL is necessary. Response: We agree with the reviewer that the research gap needed to be more explicitly articulated. In response, we have revised the Introduction to clearly highlight the necessity of this systematic review. The revised text now explicitly states that: Existing studies on technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) are scattered across contexts, technologies, and educational settings , with limited synthesis. Prior research has not systematically integrated theoretical frameworks , technology-supported project types , and pedagogical implications within a single review. No previous systematic review has comprehensively mapped how different project types and technologies are linked to language skills and learning outcomes. These revisions clarify why a systematic review of TEPBLL is both timely and necessary, and they explicitly position the present study as addressing this gap. Reviewer comment: The method section adheres to PRISMA… However, there is some inconsistency in the terminology; for example, “techno collaborations” sounds strange. Response: We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the methodological rigor of the study, including adherence to PRISMA guidelines, transparent database selection (Web of Science SSCI, 2015–2024), clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the double-coding procedure with a third reviewer to ensure reliability. Regarding terminology, we agree that clarity and consistency are essential. In the revised manuscript, we have reviewed the terminology used throughout the text and replaced ambiguous expressions such as “techno collaborations” with clearer and more standard terms, including “technology-mediated collaboration” or “technology-supported collaboration,” depending on context. This revision improves precision and readability without altering the intended meaning. Reviewer comment: The conclusion indicates that this paper focuses on the theory, technology, and implications of TEPBLL, and includes recommendations for future research. Response: We appreciate this observation. In the revised version, the Conclusion has been further refined to ensure that it clearly synthesizes the key contributions of the review—namely, the theoretical foundations, technology-supported project types, and pedagogical implications of TEPBLL—without overlapping with the Results or Discussion sections. The recommendations for future research have been clarified and aligned with the identified gaps in theory use, methodological consistency, and reporting practices, thereby offering concrete guidance for subsequent studies. We are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have helped us strengthen the articulation of the research gap, improve terminological clarity, and refine the overall structure of the manuscript. We believe that the revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the study. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments, as well as for recognizing the relevance and timeliness of the topic. The feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity, rigor, and coherence of the manuscript. Our responses to each comment are provided below. Reviewer comment: This manuscript addresses the integration of technology and project-based learning in language teaching, which is highly relevant to current educational trends. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive assessment of the topic’s relevance. The increasing integration of digital technologies in project-based language learning contexts motivated us to undertake this systematic review, and we have maintained a strong focus on contemporary educational practices throughout the manuscript. Reviewer comment: The introduction does not properly highlight research gaps… it is unclear why a systematic review of TEPBLL is necessary. Response: We agree with the reviewer that the research gap needed to be more explicitly articulated. In response, we have revised the Introduction to clearly highlight the necessity of this systematic review. The revised text now explicitly states that: Existing studies on technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) are scattered across contexts, technologies, and educational settings , with limited synthesis. Prior research has not systematically integrated theoretical frameworks , technology-supported project types , and pedagogical implications within a single review. No previous systematic review has comprehensively mapped how different project types and technologies are linked to language skills and learning outcomes. These revisions clarify why a systematic review of TEPBLL is both timely and necessary, and they explicitly position the present study as addressing this gap. Reviewer comment: The method section adheres to PRISMA… However, there is some inconsistency in the terminology; for example, “techno collaborations” sounds strange. Response: We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the methodological rigor of the study, including adherence to PRISMA guidelines, transparent database selection (Web of Science SSCI, 2015–2024), clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the double-coding procedure with a third reviewer to ensure reliability. Regarding terminology, we agree that clarity and consistency are essential. In the revised manuscript, we have reviewed the terminology used throughout the text and replaced ambiguous expressions such as “techno collaborations” with clearer and more standard terms, including “technology-mediated collaboration” or “technology-supported collaboration,” depending on context. This revision improves precision and readability without altering the intended meaning. Reviewer comment: The conclusion indicates that this paper focuses on the theory, technology, and implications of TEPBLL, and includes recommendations for future research. Response: We appreciate this observation. In the revised version, the Conclusion has been further refined to ensure that it clearly synthesizes the key contributions of the review—namely, the theoretical foundations, technology-supported project types, and pedagogical implications of TEPBLL—without overlapping with the Results or Discussion sections. The recommendations for future research have been clarified and aligned with the identified gaps in theory use, methodological consistency, and reporting practices, thereby offering concrete guidance for subsequent studies. We are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have helped us strengthen the articulation of the research gap, improve terminological clarity, and refine the overall structure of the manuscript. We believe that the revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the study. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. No financial, professional, or personal relationships exist that could be construed to influence the content, interpretation, or conclusions of this article. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Muthmainnah M. Reviewer Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182132.r406177 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v1#referee-response-406177 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Aug 2025 Muthmainnah Muthmainnah , Teacher training and education faculty, Universitas Al Asyariah Mandar, Polewali, Sulawesi Barat, Indonesia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182132.r406177 The paper addresses an important and timely topic with potential to make a meaningful contribution. However, significant revisions are required to improve methodological rigor, analytical depth, and clarity of conclusions. Major Points for Revision Clarify ... Continue reading READ ALL The paper addresses an important and timely topic with potential to make a meaningful contribution. However, significant revisions are required to improve methodological rigor, analytical depth, and clarity of conclusions. Major Points for Revision Clarify the rationale and objectives, explicitly state the research gap this review addresses. Strengthen methodological transparency, include detailed search strings, timeframe, PRISMA flow diagram, and reliability checks. Enhance data analysis, where possible, provide effect sizes, correlations, or subgroup analyses; justify why meta-analysis was not attempted. Moderate conclusions, ensure claims are proportionate to the evidence presented and highlight limitations clearly. Improve structure and flow, some sections overlap (e.g., introduction and discussion) and could be streamlined for clarity. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: English education, Education and AIED I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Muthmainnah M. Reviewer Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182132.r406177 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v1#referee-response-406177 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Ainun Fikria , Language and Literature Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia 14 Jan 2026 Author Response We thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for acknowledging the importance and timeliness of the topic. We appreciate the constructive feedback and have undertaken substantial ... Continue reading We thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for acknowledging the importance and timeliness of the topic. We appreciate the constructive feedback and have undertaken substantial revisions to strengthen methodological rigor, analytical depth, clarity of conclusions, and overall structure. Below, we respond to each major point in detail. Reviewer comment: Clarify the rationale and objectives, explicitly state the research gap this review addresses. Response: We agree that a clearer articulation of the research gap is essential. In the revised manuscript, the Introduction has been substantially rewritten to explicitly state the need for this review. We now clearly argue that although technology-enhanced language learning and project-based learning have been widely studied, existing research on technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) remains fragmented , with no prior systematic review integrating theoretical frameworks, technology-supported project types, targeted language skills, and pedagogical implications within a single synthesis. The objectives of the review have been clarified and aligned with this gap through explicitly stated research questions that guide the scope and analytical focus of the study. Reviewer comment: Strengthen methodological transparency, include detailed search strings, timeframe, PRISMA flow diagram, and reliability checks. Response: We have substantially strengthened the Methods section to improve transparency and reproducibility. The revised manuscript now includes: Explicit Boolean search strings used in the database search. Clear specification of the database (Web of Science SSCI) and review timeframe (2015–2024). A PRISMA 2020 flow diagram documenting identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion stages. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, including four exclusion gates and three inclusion rules. A clear description of the coding process and interrater reliability analysis , including double coding and calculation of Cohen’s kappa (κ = 0.808, 95% CI = 0.70–0.93), with disagreement resolution procedures. These additions ensure that the review process is transparent, rigorous, and replicable. Reviewer comment: Enhance data analysis, where possible, provide effect sizes, correlations, or subgroup analyses; justify why meta-analysis was not attempted. Response: We acknowledge the value of quantitative synthesis and have enhanced the analytical depth where feasible. The revised manuscript includes descriptive subgroup analyses based on theoretical frameworks, project types, technologies, and language skills. However, a meta-analysis was not conducted due to substantial heterogeneity in study designs, outcome measures, participant populations, and reporting practices. In addition, many primary studies did not report sufficient statistical information (e.g., effect sizes or variance estimates) to support valid quantitative aggregation. This rationale is now explicitly stated and justified in both the Methods and Discussion sections. Reviewer comment: Moderate conclusions, ensure claims are proportionate to the evidence presented and highlight limitations clearly. Response: We have carefully revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to moderate claims and avoid causal interpretations. Strong or definitive language has been replaced with cautious, evidence-aligned phrasing (e.g., “suggests,” “is associated with,” “indicates”). A dedicated discussion of limitations has been added, addressing database scope, heterogeneity of study designs, reliance on self-reported outcomes, and constraints in quantitative reporting. These revisions ensure that conclusions remain proportionate to the available evidence. Reviewer comment: Improve structure and flow; some sections overlap and could be streamlined for clarity. Response: To address this concern, we have revised the manuscript structure to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Conceptual framing has been consolidated in the Introduction, descriptive findings are confined to the Results, and interpretive analysis is clearly positioned in the Discussion. Transitions between sections have been refined to enhance readability and logical flow. We believe these revisions substantially strengthen the manuscript and directly address all major concerns raised by the reviewer. We are grateful for the insightful feedback, which has helped improve the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the study. We thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for acknowledging the importance and timeliness of the topic. We appreciate the constructive feedback and have undertaken substantial revisions to strengthen methodological rigor, analytical depth, clarity of conclusions, and overall structure. Below, we respond to each major point in detail. Reviewer comment: Clarify the rationale and objectives, explicitly state the research gap this review addresses. Response: We agree that a clearer articulation of the research gap is essential. In the revised manuscript, the Introduction has been substantially rewritten to explicitly state the need for this review. We now clearly argue that although technology-enhanced language learning and project-based learning have been widely studied, existing research on technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) remains fragmented , with no prior systematic review integrating theoretical frameworks, technology-supported project types, targeted language skills, and pedagogical implications within a single synthesis. The objectives of the review have been clarified and aligned with this gap through explicitly stated research questions that guide the scope and analytical focus of the study. Reviewer comment: Strengthen methodological transparency, include detailed search strings, timeframe, PRISMA flow diagram, and reliability checks. Response: We have substantially strengthened the Methods section to improve transparency and reproducibility. The revised manuscript now includes: Explicit Boolean search strings used in the database search. Clear specification of the database (Web of Science SSCI) and review timeframe (2015–2024). A PRISMA 2020 flow diagram documenting identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion stages. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, including four exclusion gates and three inclusion rules. A clear description of the coding process and interrater reliability analysis , including double coding and calculation of Cohen’s kappa (κ = 0.808, 95% CI = 0.70–0.93), with disagreement resolution procedures. These additions ensure that the review process is transparent, rigorous, and replicable. Reviewer comment: Enhance data analysis, where possible, provide effect sizes, correlations, or subgroup analyses; justify why meta-analysis was not attempted. Response: We acknowledge the value of quantitative synthesis and have enhanced the analytical depth where feasible. The revised manuscript includes descriptive subgroup analyses based on theoretical frameworks, project types, technologies, and language skills. However, a meta-analysis was not conducted due to substantial heterogeneity in study designs, outcome measures, participant populations, and reporting practices. In addition, many primary studies did not report sufficient statistical information (e.g., effect sizes or variance estimates) to support valid quantitative aggregation. This rationale is now explicitly stated and justified in both the Methods and Discussion sections. Reviewer comment: Moderate conclusions, ensure claims are proportionate to the evidence presented and highlight limitations clearly. Response: We have carefully revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to moderate claims and avoid causal interpretations. Strong or definitive language has been replaced with cautious, evidence-aligned phrasing (e.g., “suggests,” “is associated with,” “indicates”). A dedicated discussion of limitations has been added, addressing database scope, heterogeneity of study designs, reliance on self-reported outcomes, and constraints in quantitative reporting. These revisions ensure that conclusions remain proportionate to the available evidence. Reviewer comment: Improve structure and flow; some sections overlap and could be streamlined for clarity. Response: To address this concern, we have revised the manuscript structure to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Conceptual framing has been consolidated in the Introduction, descriptive findings are confined to the Results, and interpretive analysis is clearly positioned in the Discussion. Transitions between sections have been refined to enhance readability and logical flow. We believe these revisions substantially strengthen the manuscript and directly address all major concerns raised by the reviewer. We are grateful for the insightful feedback, which has helped improve the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the study. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. No financial, professional, or personal relationships exist that could be construed to influence the content, interpretation, or conclusions of this article. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Ainun Fikria , Language and Literature Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia 14 Jan 2026 Author Response We thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for acknowledging the importance and timeliness of the topic. We appreciate the constructive feedback and have undertaken substantial ... Continue reading We thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for acknowledging the importance and timeliness of the topic. We appreciate the constructive feedback and have undertaken substantial revisions to strengthen methodological rigor, analytical depth, clarity of conclusions, and overall structure. Below, we respond to each major point in detail. Reviewer comment: Clarify the rationale and objectives, explicitly state the research gap this review addresses. Response: We agree that a clearer articulation of the research gap is essential. In the revised manuscript, the Introduction has been substantially rewritten to explicitly state the need for this review. We now clearly argue that although technology-enhanced language learning and project-based learning have been widely studied, existing research on technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) remains fragmented , with no prior systematic review integrating theoretical frameworks, technology-supported project types, targeted language skills, and pedagogical implications within a single synthesis. The objectives of the review have been clarified and aligned with this gap through explicitly stated research questions that guide the scope and analytical focus of the study. Reviewer comment: Strengthen methodological transparency, include detailed search strings, timeframe, PRISMA flow diagram, and reliability checks. Response: We have substantially strengthened the Methods section to improve transparency and reproducibility. The revised manuscript now includes: Explicit Boolean search strings used in the database search. Clear specification of the database (Web of Science SSCI) and review timeframe (2015–2024). A PRISMA 2020 flow diagram documenting identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion stages. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, including four exclusion gates and three inclusion rules. A clear description of the coding process and interrater reliability analysis , including double coding and calculation of Cohen’s kappa (κ = 0.808, 95% CI = 0.70–0.93), with disagreement resolution procedures. These additions ensure that the review process is transparent, rigorous, and replicable. Reviewer comment: Enhance data analysis, where possible, provide effect sizes, correlations, or subgroup analyses; justify why meta-analysis was not attempted. Response: We acknowledge the value of quantitative synthesis and have enhanced the analytical depth where feasible. The revised manuscript includes descriptive subgroup analyses based on theoretical frameworks, project types, technologies, and language skills. However, a meta-analysis was not conducted due to substantial heterogeneity in study designs, outcome measures, participant populations, and reporting practices. In addition, many primary studies did not report sufficient statistical information (e.g., effect sizes or variance estimates) to support valid quantitative aggregation. This rationale is now explicitly stated and justified in both the Methods and Discussion sections. Reviewer comment: Moderate conclusions, ensure claims are proportionate to the evidence presented and highlight limitations clearly. Response: We have carefully revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to moderate claims and avoid causal interpretations. Strong or definitive language has been replaced with cautious, evidence-aligned phrasing (e.g., “suggests,” “is associated with,” “indicates”). A dedicated discussion of limitations has been added, addressing database scope, heterogeneity of study designs, reliance on self-reported outcomes, and constraints in quantitative reporting. These revisions ensure that conclusions remain proportionate to the available evidence. Reviewer comment: Improve structure and flow; some sections overlap and could be streamlined for clarity. Response: To address this concern, we have revised the manuscript structure to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Conceptual framing has been consolidated in the Introduction, descriptive findings are confined to the Results, and interpretive analysis is clearly positioned in the Discussion. Transitions between sections have been refined to enhance readability and logical flow. We believe these revisions substantially strengthen the manuscript and directly address all major concerns raised by the reviewer. We are grateful for the insightful feedback, which has helped improve the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the study. We thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for acknowledging the importance and timeliness of the topic. We appreciate the constructive feedback and have undertaken substantial revisions to strengthen methodological rigor, analytical depth, clarity of conclusions, and overall structure. Below, we respond to each major point in detail. Reviewer comment: Clarify the rationale and objectives, explicitly state the research gap this review addresses. Response: We agree that a clearer articulation of the research gap is essential. In the revised manuscript, the Introduction has been substantially rewritten to explicitly state the need for this review. We now clearly argue that although technology-enhanced language learning and project-based learning have been widely studied, existing research on technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) remains fragmented , with no prior systematic review integrating theoretical frameworks, technology-supported project types, targeted language skills, and pedagogical implications within a single synthesis. The objectives of the review have been clarified and aligned with this gap through explicitly stated research questions that guide the scope and analytical focus of the study. Reviewer comment: Strengthen methodological transparency, include detailed search strings, timeframe, PRISMA flow diagram, and reliability checks. Response: We have substantially strengthened the Methods section to improve transparency and reproducibility. The revised manuscript now includes: Explicit Boolean search strings used in the database search. Clear specification of the database (Web of Science SSCI) and review timeframe (2015–2024). A PRISMA 2020 flow diagram documenting identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion stages. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, including four exclusion gates and three inclusion rules. A clear description of the coding process and interrater reliability analysis , including double coding and calculation of Cohen’s kappa (κ = 0.808, 95% CI = 0.70–0.93), with disagreement resolution procedures. These additions ensure that the review process is transparent, rigorous, and replicable. Reviewer comment: Enhance data analysis, where possible, provide effect sizes, correlations, or subgroup analyses; justify why meta-analysis was not attempted. Response: We acknowledge the value of quantitative synthesis and have enhanced the analytical depth where feasible. The revised manuscript includes descriptive subgroup analyses based on theoretical frameworks, project types, technologies, and language skills. However, a meta-analysis was not conducted due to substantial heterogeneity in study designs, outcome measures, participant populations, and reporting practices. In addition, many primary studies did not report sufficient statistical information (e.g., effect sizes or variance estimates) to support valid quantitative aggregation. This rationale is now explicitly stated and justified in both the Methods and Discussion sections. Reviewer comment: Moderate conclusions, ensure claims are proportionate to the evidence presented and highlight limitations clearly. Response: We have carefully revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to moderate claims and avoid causal interpretations. Strong or definitive language has been replaced with cautious, evidence-aligned phrasing (e.g., “suggests,” “is associated with,” “indicates”). A dedicated discussion of limitations has been added, addressing database scope, heterogeneity of study designs, reliance on self-reported outcomes, and constraints in quantitative reporting. These revisions ensure that conclusions remain proportionate to the available evidence. Reviewer comment: Improve structure and flow; some sections overlap and could be streamlined for clarity. Response: To address this concern, we have revised the manuscript structure to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Conceptual framing has been consolidated in the Introduction, descriptive findings are confined to the Results, and interpretive analysis is clearly positioned in the Discussion. Transitions between sections have been refined to enhance readability and logical flow. We believe these revisions substantially strengthen the manuscript and directly address all major concerns raised by the reviewer. We are grateful for the insightful feedback, which has helped improve the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the study. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. No financial, professional, or personal relationships exist that could be construed to influence the content, interpretation, or conclusions of this article. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 08 Aug 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 2 (revision) 27 Dec 25 read read Version 1 08 Aug 25 read read Muthmainnah Muthmainnah , Universitas Al Asyariah Mandar, Polewali, Indonesia Ahmad Ridho Rojabi , Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Haji Achmad Siddiq Jember, East Java, Indonesia Saifon Songsiengchai , Rajamangala University of Technology, Krungthep, Thailand Jiawei Wang , Universiti Sains Malaysia, George Town, Malaysia Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Wang J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 31 Jan 2026 | for Version 2 Jiawei Wang , Universiti Sains Malaysia, George Town, Malaysia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Wang J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The manuscript has reached an acceptable standard, but some parts still need improvement. Specific suggestions are as follows: 1. The introduction is still somewhat lengthy, especially the paragraphs on pages 3–4 which contain overlapping information. 2. The conclusion could be further enhanced in terms of theoretical depth. Two points should be emphasized: (1) TEPBLL, as a composite model of "task design + social interaction + multimodal technology," should have a clearer theoretical positioning. (2) Emphasize the potential of TEPBLL for cross-cultural collaborative research. 3. Future research suggestions could include specific methodological aspects, such as a systematic comparison of the causal mechanisms of different PBLL task structures. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise not applicable. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Wang J. Peer Review Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194301.r447127) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v2#referee-response-447127 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Songsiengchai S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 16 Jan 2026 | for Version 2 Saifon Songsiengchai , Rajamangala University of Technology, Krungthep, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2026 Songsiengchai S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions 1. This review is descriptive and narrative and not quantitative in nature. Statistical synthesis, or a meta-analysis, was not planned by this review due to wide variation in the included studies’ designs, measures of outcome, and reporting practice. For example, the reviewed studies employ different project designs, technologies, and assessment approaches, making direct statistical comparison inappropriate. 2. This review is a one-time systematic summary with a constant search period, rather than a living systematic review. There is no provision for routine updating or a systematic search strategy. The purpose of the review is to offer an overview of technology-facilitated project-based language learning over time; thus, it also fails to meet the criterion for a living systematic review. For example, the review clearly defines a fixed search timeframe (2015–2024) rather than outlining procedures for continuous or periodic updates. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Teaching, Education, Coaching and Mentoring I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Songsiengchai S. Peer Review Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194301.r445310) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v2#referee-response-445310 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rojabi A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 09 Sep 2025 | for Version 1 Ahmad Ridho Rojabi , Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Haji Achmad Siddiq Jember, East Java, East Java, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rojabi A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions 1. This manuscript addresses the integration of technology and project-based learning in language teaching, which is highly relevant to current educational trends. 2. The introduction does not properly highlight research gaps. The introduction emphasizes "reviewing what exists," but it's unclear why a systematic review of TEPBLL is necessary. For example, are previous studies scattered without synthesis? Has the theoretical framework not been drawn up? Has there been no comprehensive review of project types? These points should be highlighted. 3. The method section adheres to PRISMA, increasing credibility as a systematic review. Database clarity and year range: We only used Web of Science (SSCI) from 2015 to 2024. The mention of four exclusion gates and three inclusion rules is significant for validity and transparency. Explained the coding process, which included reading, recording, grouping, and generating categories. Two researchers double-coded and discussed with a third researcher to improve reliability. However, there is some inconsistency in the terminology; for example, "techno collaborations" sounds strange; perhaps they mean technological collaborations. 4. The conclusion indicates that this paper focuses on the theory, technology, and implications of TEPBLL. There is a section with recommendations for future research to guide the reader. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Technology-enhanced language learning, engagement, and social presence. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Ainun Fikria, Language and Literature Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments, as well as for recognizing the relevance and timeliness of the topic. The feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity, rigor, and coherence of the manuscript. Our responses to each comment are provided below. Reviewer comment: This manuscript addresses the integration of technology and project-based learning in language teaching, which is highly relevant to current educational trends. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive assessment of the topic’s relevance. The increasing integration of digital technologies in project-based language learning contexts motivated us to undertake this systematic review, and we have maintained a strong focus on contemporary educational practices throughout the manuscript. Reviewer comment: The introduction does not properly highlight research gaps… it is unclear why a systematic review of TEPBLL is necessary. Response: We agree with the reviewer that the research gap needed to be more explicitly articulated. In response, we have revised the Introduction to clearly highlight the necessity of this systematic review. The revised text now explicitly states that: Existing studies on technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) are scattered across contexts, technologies, and educational settings , with limited synthesis. Prior research has not systematically integrated theoretical frameworks , technology-supported project types , and pedagogical implications within a single review. No previous systematic review has comprehensively mapped how different project types and technologies are linked to language skills and learning outcomes. These revisions clarify why a systematic review of TEPBLL is both timely and necessary, and they explicitly position the present study as addressing this gap. Reviewer comment: The method section adheres to PRISMA… However, there is some inconsistency in the terminology; for example, “techno collaborations” sounds strange. Response: We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the methodological rigor of the study, including adherence to PRISMA guidelines, transparent database selection (Web of Science SSCI, 2015–2024), clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the double-coding procedure with a third reviewer to ensure reliability. Regarding terminology, we agree that clarity and consistency are essential. In the revised manuscript, we have reviewed the terminology used throughout the text and replaced ambiguous expressions such as “techno collaborations” with clearer and more standard terms, including “technology-mediated collaboration” or “technology-supported collaboration,” depending on context. This revision improves precision and readability without altering the intended meaning. Reviewer comment: The conclusion indicates that this paper focuses on the theory, technology, and implications of TEPBLL, and includes recommendations for future research. Response: We appreciate this observation. In the revised version, the Conclusion has been further refined to ensure that it clearly synthesizes the key contributions of the review—namely, the theoretical foundations, technology-supported project types, and pedagogical implications of TEPBLL—without overlapping with the Results or Discussion sections. The recommendations for future research have been clarified and aligned with the identified gaps in theory use, methodological consistency, and reporting practices, thereby offering concrete guidance for subsequent studies. We are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have helped us strengthen the articulation of the research gap, improve terminological clarity, and refine the overall structure of the manuscript. We believe that the revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the study. View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. No financial, professional, or personal relationships exist that could be construed to influence the content, interpretation, or conclusions of this article. reply Respond Report a concern Rojabi AR. Peer Review Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182132.r406178) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v1#referee-response-406178 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Muthmainnah M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Aug 2025 | for Version 1 Muthmainnah Muthmainnah , Teacher training and education faculty, Universitas Al Asyariah Mandar, Polewali, Sulawesi Barat, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Muthmainnah M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The paper addresses an important and timely topic with potential to make a meaningful contribution. However, significant revisions are required to improve methodological rigor, analytical depth, and clarity of conclusions. Major Points for Revision Clarify the rationale and objectives, explicitly state the research gap this review addresses. Strengthen methodological transparency, include detailed search strings, timeframe, PRISMA flow diagram, and reliability checks. Enhance data analysis, where possible, provide effect sizes, correlations, or subgroup analyses; justify why meta-analysis was not attempted. Moderate conclusions, ensure claims are proportionate to the evidence presented and highlight limitations clearly. Improve structure and flow, some sections overlap (e.g., introduction and discussion) and could be streamlined for clarity. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise English education, Education and AIED I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Ainun Fikria, Language and Literature Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia We thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for acknowledging the importance and timeliness of the topic. We appreciate the constructive feedback and have undertaken substantial revisions to strengthen methodological rigor, analytical depth, clarity of conclusions, and overall structure. Below, we respond to each major point in detail. Reviewer comment: Clarify the rationale and objectives, explicitly state the research gap this review addresses. Response: We agree that a clearer articulation of the research gap is essential. In the revised manuscript, the Introduction has been substantially rewritten to explicitly state the need for this review. We now clearly argue that although technology-enhanced language learning and project-based learning have been widely studied, existing research on technology-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) remains fragmented , with no prior systematic review integrating theoretical frameworks, technology-supported project types, targeted language skills, and pedagogical implications within a single synthesis. The objectives of the review have been clarified and aligned with this gap through explicitly stated research questions that guide the scope and analytical focus of the study. Reviewer comment: Strengthen methodological transparency, include detailed search strings, timeframe, PRISMA flow diagram, and reliability checks. Response: We have substantially strengthened the Methods section to improve transparency and reproducibility. The revised manuscript now includes: Explicit Boolean search strings used in the database search. Clear specification of the database (Web of Science SSCI) and review timeframe (2015–2024). A PRISMA 2020 flow diagram documenting identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion stages. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, including four exclusion gates and three inclusion rules. A clear description of the coding process and interrater reliability analysis , including double coding and calculation of Cohen’s kappa (κ = 0.808, 95% CI = 0.70–0.93), with disagreement resolution procedures. These additions ensure that the review process is transparent, rigorous, and replicable. Reviewer comment: Enhance data analysis, where possible, provide effect sizes, correlations, or subgroup analyses; justify why meta-analysis was not attempted. Response: We acknowledge the value of quantitative synthesis and have enhanced the analytical depth where feasible. The revised manuscript includes descriptive subgroup analyses based on theoretical frameworks, project types, technologies, and language skills. However, a meta-analysis was not conducted due to substantial heterogeneity in study designs, outcome measures, participant populations, and reporting practices. In addition, many primary studies did not report sufficient statistical information (e.g., effect sizes or variance estimates) to support valid quantitative aggregation. This rationale is now explicitly stated and justified in both the Methods and Discussion sections. Reviewer comment: Moderate conclusions, ensure claims are proportionate to the evidence presented and highlight limitations clearly. Response: We have carefully revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to moderate claims and avoid causal interpretations. Strong or definitive language has been replaced with cautious, evidence-aligned phrasing (e.g., “suggests,” “is associated with,” “indicates”). A dedicated discussion of limitations has been added, addressing database scope, heterogeneity of study designs, reliance on self-reported outcomes, and constraints in quantitative reporting. These revisions ensure that conclusions remain proportionate to the available evidence. Reviewer comment: Improve structure and flow; some sections overlap and could be streamlined for clarity. Response: To address this concern, we have revised the manuscript structure to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Conceptual framing has been consolidated in the Introduction, descriptive findings are confined to the Results, and interpretive analysis is clearly positioned in the Discussion. Transitions between sections have been refined to enhance readability and logical flow. We believe these revisions substantially strengthen the manuscript and directly address all major concerns raised by the reviewer. We are grateful for the insightful feedback, which has helped improve the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the study. View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. No financial, professional, or personal relationships exist that could be construed to influence the content, interpretation, or conclusions of this article. reply Respond Report a concern Muthmainnah M. Peer Review Report For: A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning: Theoretical Frameworks, Project Types, and Implications for Future Research and Practice [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :775 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182132.r406177) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v1#referee-response-406177 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Fikria A et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775", templates : { twitter : "A Systematic Review of Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language.... Fikria A et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-775/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/165491/194301") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "194301"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "447126": 0, "447127": 2, "447124": 0, "447125": 0, "447122": 0, "447123": 0, "447120": 0, "447121": 0, "406174": 0, "406175": 0, "406172": 0, "406173": 0, "406170": 0, "406171": 0, "447128": 0, "447129": 0, "406178": 20, "406179": 0, "406176": 0, "406177": 21, "445302": 0, "445303": 0, "445108": 0, "445107": 0, "445310": 10, "445311": 0, "445308": 0, "445309": 0, "445306": 0, "445307": 0, "445304": 0, "445305": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "35c6c705-a612-4987-b7e3-ebe8a931032d"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });