To explore how Computer-mediated Communication (CMC) influences spoken language and vocabulary acquisition in EFL contexts, two relevant case studies are presented to bolster the central claim that CMC can yield positive outcomes for oral proficiency, particularly in terms of syntactic complexity, and for lexical growth. The paper also examines the advantages and disadvantages of CMC, which can be distilled into three core areas: heightened authenticity, greater equality among participants, and increased engagement. On the other hand, its limitations predominantly revolve around the technological proficiency demanded of both teachers and students, the potential for ambiguity and misunderstanding inherent in digital interfaces, and various barriers that hinder smooth online interaction. In view of these considerations, the implementation of CMC carries practical implications for three key groups: learners, instructors, and educational institutions.

Zhang Bohui. The Use of Computer-mediated Communication to Develop EFL Learners’ Oral Performance and English Vocabulary. Frontiers in Educational Research (2026), Vol. 9, Issue 10: 64-69. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2026.091010.

[1] Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), pp.419–438. doi:10.1111/j.14679841.2006.00286.x. 

[2] Bagherbeigi, V. (2019). The Impact of Computer-mediated Communication on EFL Learners’ Oral Performance. Computer Science, Education, Linguistics. https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/11174. 

[3] Burgoon, J.K., Bengtsson, B., Bonito, J.A., Cederberg, C., Lundeberg, M. and Allspach, L. (2000). Interactivity in human–computer interaction: a study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(553-574). https://doi.org/10.1016/S07475632(00)00029-7. 

[4] Chen, J., Wang, M., Kirschner, P.A. and Tsai, C. (2018). The Role of Collaboration, Computer Use, Learning Environments, and Supporting Strategies in CSCL: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), pp.799–843. doi:10.3102/0034654318791584. 

[5] Chun, D.M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), pp.17–31. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(94)90037-x.

[6] Herring, S.C. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia John Benjamins Publishing Company, p.1. 

[7] Frailich, M., Kesner, M. and Hofstein, A. (2009). Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept ofchemical bondingby using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), pp.289–310. doi:10.1002/tea.20278. 

[8] Hosseini, S. (2012). Asynchronous Computer-mediated Corrective Feedback and the Correct Use of Prepositions: Is It Really Effective? Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 13(4).

[9] Mazzon, G. (2016). A History of English Negation. Routledge, p.196. 

[10] Kim, E.Y.A. and Brown, L. (2014). Negotiating Pragmatic Competence in Computer Mediated Communication: The Case of Korean Address Terms. CALICO Journal, 31(3), pp.264–284. doi:10.11139/cj.31.3.264-284. 

[11] Kramsch, C, and Thorne, S.L. (2001). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. Globalization and Language Teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203193679. 

[12] Kinginger, C. (1998). Videoconferencing as Access to Spoken French. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), pp.502–513. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05537.x. 

[13] Kumar, A., Natarajan, S. and Acharjya, B. (2017). Computer mediated communication: A pathway to analyze social media communication trajectories. Man in India, 97(4). 

[14] Iwai, Y. (2011). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Pedagogical Implications for EFL/ESL Teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2). 

[15] Nesrine, G., Sara, L. and Belhadi, S. (2019). Computer Mediated Communication and Vocabulary Learning: The Case of Facebook. Ethical Lingua: Journal of Language Teaching and Literature, 6(2), pp.98–116. doi:10.30605/25409190.v6.98-116. 

[16] Nguyen, L.V. (2008a). Computer mediated communication and foreign language education: Pedagogical features. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning., 5(12). 

[17] Payne, J. and Ross, B. (2005). Synchronous CMC, Working Memory, And L2 Oral Proficiency Development. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), pp.35–54. doi:10125/44031. 

[18] Rasheed, R.A., Kamsin, A. and Abdullah, N.A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144(1), p.103701. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701. 

[19] Sullivan, N. and Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24(4), pp.491–501. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(96)00044-9. 

[20] Trentin, G. and Benigno, V. (1997). Multimedia Conferencing in Education: Methodological and Organizational Considerations. Educational Technology, 37(5). doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428416. 

[21] Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research, 23(1), pp.3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001. 

[22] Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (2006). Network-based language teaching : concepts and practice. Cambridge, Uk ; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.23–282.

[23] Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), pp.470–481. doi:10.1111/j.15404781.1997.tb05514.x. 

[24] Wen, Y. (2019). Computer-Supported Collaborative L2 Learning. In: Computer-Supported Collaborative Chinese Second Language Learning. Springer, Singapore: Chinese Language Learning Sciences., pp.21–35. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-0271-2_3. 

[25] Zimmerman, C.B. (1997). Do Reading and Interactive Vocabulary Instruction Make a Difference? An Empirical Study. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), p.121. doi:10.2307/3587978.