Digitalization or digital transition is one of the major objectives and challenges in higher education (European Education Area). The use of digital technologies for education and language learning has been extensively researched, including in the field of higher education (Beatty, 2010; Carrier et al., 2017; Cavanaugh et al., 2022; Dumitru, 2023; Gamage et al., 2022).

Technology-enhanced language learning (TELL) and Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), which started in the 1960s (Hampel & Stickler, 2024), have had a significant impact on the methodology of teaching and learning languages, including English for Special Purposes (ESP) (Dou et al., 2023). According to Hampel and Stickler (2024), digitalization has not simply added tools; it has fundamentally transformed the nature of language learning itself. From this perspective, ESP learning has become a complex, multilayered, and dynamic process, comparable to a mosaic of diverse inputs, exposure moments, and learning contexts (Hampel, as cited in Hampel & Stickler, 2024). Today, education takes place both online and in a distance format, with the use of mobile learning (Kukulska-Hulme, as cited in Hampel & Stickler, 2024) and other digital devices, while various platforms, software, and digital tools are also used in the university lecture room. The latest technologies that have emerged are more interactive and collaborative (Kessler, 2018; Godwin-Jones, 2021) and are more focused on student-centeredness and autonomous language learning (Wujec-Kaczmarek, 2021).

In this context, the use of different forms of digital devices (a computer, a telephone, a laptop, and a tablet, etc.), as well as the application of different digital tools (tools for language acquisition, production, comprehension, and interaction; Hubbard, as cited in Hampel & Stickler, 2024), makes an ESP lecture a multimodal place and requires students to be multiliterate (Hubbard, as cited in Hampel & Stickler, 2024; Tzirides et al., as cited in Hampel & Stickler, 2024).

From a theoretical perspective, a modern ESP lecture can be viewed through the lens of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2017; Hampel, as cited in Hampel & Stickler, 2024), where language is approached from a broader, more holistic perspective, emphasizing its variability and dynamic interaction and placing at the center interacting elements such as learners, teachers, tools, and the environment. Complex Dynamic Systems Theory helps us understand why multimodality matters in ESP. Since CDST conceptualizes language learning as a complex, non-linear, and socially situated process shaped by multiple interacting factors, multimodal digital environments provide the semiotic, social, and cognitive resources through which learning can emerge and develop over time (Hampel, as cited in Hampel & Stickler, 2024; Larsen-Freeman, 2017).

As with all innovations, the application of digital tools raises numerous issues for academia, researchers, and students, such as the benefits and drawbacks of different forms of digital tool use in teaching and learning, the level of digital competence among students who are often considered digital natives (Rathert & Cabaroglu, 2024) and among academic staff, as well as the relevance of specific skills for effective educational practice.

The objective of the research is to explore the use and perception of digital technologies in university ESP teaching from the perspective of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory, with particular attention to multimodality, learner interaction, and the interrelation between learners and academic personnel, tools, and learning environments, both within and beyond the university lecture room. Consequently, the main research question is:

How do university students use and perceive digital devices, tools, and software for language learning and communication in higher education, both in terms of their own practices and their perceptions of academic staff use?

The research was conducted as a quantitative descriptive survey (Paltridge & Phakiti, 2015) using a structured, self-administered online questionnaire to collect data on students’ digital device use, software practices, and attitudes toward digital tools in language learning. The descriptive survey was chosen because it is suitable for university-level applied linguistics research, as it enables a current-situation analysis of students’ digital practices in language learning. In an ESP context, it provides empirical insight into actual tool use within specific study programmes. The research is framed as a case study focusing on ESP digital practices in higher education, examined across two institutional sites, with the aim of identifying general tendencies rather than institutional or national differences. A total of 176 participants took part in the study. The respondents were first-, second- and third- year students from Turiba University and Alecu Russo Bălți State University. As the aim of the study was to explore general patterns of digital tool use in language learning rather than to compare institutional or national contexts, the results were analysed as a single dataset. No cross-country or cross-institutional comparisons were conducted. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part collected background information, including demographic data about the respondents. The second part included questions on digital device use in various learning contexts, both in the lecture room and outside the classroom, and covered device use by both students and lecturers. The next section focused on the choice and frequency of use of digital tools and software by students themselves and by language instructors (e.g., Quizlet, Kahoot, Duolingo, PowerPoint, YouTube, AI-based programs) for language learning. The final part gathered participants’ levels of agreement with statements concerning the usefulness of digital tools for language learning (e.g., vocabulary development, pronunciation, reading skills). A Likert-type frequency scale was used for data collection. The primary tool for data collection was an online questionnaire created and administered via Google Forms. Participants accessed the survey link and completed the questionnaire online on a voluntary basis. All responses were automatically recorded in Google’s system and stored in spreadsheet format, which eliminated manual data entry errors and facilitated subsequent data processing. Data were collected between December 1 and December 29, 2025. The inclusion criterion was that all respondents had to be current university students attending English language courses at their institutions. Ethical procedures were observed throughout the study, including informed consent and assurances of confidentiality and anonymity.

The study examined how students use and perceive digital devices and tools for language learning and communication in higher education. The results indicate that mobile phones (always/often, 80%) and laptops (65%) are the most commonly used devices in the lecture room, while desktop computers ( 25%) are used rarely. Tablets, smart TVs, and e-readers are rarely employed (15%). Outside the lecture room, the use of laptops (90%) and mobile phones (85%) becomes even more dominant, confirming their central role in students’ independent language learning. With regard to digital tools and software, students most frequently use YouTube (68.5%), PowerPoint (63.7%), and Canva (57%) for language learning outside the lecture room. In contrast, institutional and interactive platforms such as Padlet, Edmodo, Mentimeter, Moodle, Socrative, and Miro are used by a relatively small number of students. Students’ perceptions of academic staff practices indicate that lecturers regularly employ digital tools for core teaching and organisational purposes, including presenting digitised materials (93.4%), informing students about assignments (87.4%), and communicating outside the lecture room (83.5%). However, the use of interactive tools (42.7%), AI-based tools (34.7%), and podcasts (27%) remains comparatively limited. From a multimodal perspective, the findings suggest that ESP learning in the selected universities already takes place within a complex multimodal environment. However, the pedagogical potential of digitalisation—particularly interactive and AI-supported tools—is not yet fully exploited by academic staff. At the same time, students demonstrate high digital readiness and strong interest in technology-enhanced learning, indicating favourable conditions for further development of multimodal ESP teaching practices. Nevertheless, interactive tools are not always explicitly recognised by students or transferred into autonomous learning, pointing to a need for greater pedagogical transparency and guidance.

1.Beatty, K. (2010). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning (2nd ed.). Routledge. 2.Carrier, M., Damerow, R. M., & Bailey, K. M. (2017). Digital language learning and teaching: Research, theory and practice. Routledge. 3.Cavanaugh, J., Jacquemin, S. J., & Junker, C. R. (2022). Student perceptions of course quality during online education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27, 1–17. 4.Dou, A. Q., Chan, S. H., & Win, M. T. (2023). Changing visions in ESP development and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1–10. 5.Dumitru, C. (2023). Distance learning and higher education hybridisation. IGI Global. 6.Gamage, K. A. A., Gamage, A., & Dehideniya, S. C. P. (2022). Online and hybrid teaching and learning: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 12(2), 1–15. 7.Godwin-Jones, R. (2021). Evolving technologies for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 1–7. 8.Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2024). (Eds.) The Bloomsbury handbook of language learning and technology. Bloomsbury Publishing 9.Kessler, G. (2018). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 205–218. 10.Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. 11.Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega & Z. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development (pp. 11–50). John Benjamins. 12.Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (Eds.). (2015). Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource. Bloomsbury Academic. 13.Rathert, S., & Cabaroglu, N. (2024). Digital competence in language education. System, 117, 102–118. 14.Wujec-Kaczmarek, M. (2021). Learner autonomy in technology-enhanced language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(8), 1121–1140. 15.European Commission. (n.d.). Higher education. European Education Area. https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/about-higher-education