Scoping review highlights the interplay between technology and identity in language education, suggesting pathways for future research.
Language learner identity is increasingly intertwined with technology in the post-digital era of language education. Despite growing research interest, reviews that systematically map this relationship remain limited. Therefore, this scoping review synthesises 57 empirical studies published between 2005 and 2025 to examine the reciprocal relationship between technology and identity in language education. Studies were identified through searches of Web of Science and Scopus. Thematic analysis was used to synthesise findings. Findings reveal that participation-oriented technology use is linked to the sociocultural and digital dimensions of identity, while learning-oriented technology use more often shapes language and digital identities. Technology shapes identity through three main mechanisms: (1) enhanced intercultural encounters that promote multiple perspectives and reflexivity; (2) democratic participation that empowers learners to resist exclusive ideologies and enact new or imagined identities; and (3) expanded opportunities for identity performance that go beyond local contexts and the classroom. The review also identifies three ways identity shapes technology use: (1) guiding selective engagement with technologies that affirm one’s identity and promote language investment; (2) leveraging technology to resist perceived deficit identities; and (3) perceiving new possibilities of technology use for learning and empowerment. This reciprocal relationship is moderated by digital literacy, sociocultural constraints, and structural conditions. Based on the findings, the review proposes a conceptual framework to guide future research and highlights the need for more longitudinal, contextually diverse, and mixed-method studies. It also provides implications in supporting positive identity construction across identity dimensions through technology selection and sensitivity to sociocultural and structural factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: