Construction and Empirical Study of an Interactive Teaching Model for College English Driven by Technology Enhancement and Task Orientation-An Integrated Analysis Based on 8 Empirical Literatures

International Journal of Social Science and Education Research Studies ISSN(print): 2770-2782, ISSN(online): 2770-2790 Volume 05 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55677/ijssers/V05I11Y2025-03, Impact Factor: 7.573 Page No : 1002-1013 1002 Available at: www.ijssers.org Construction and Empirical Study of an Interactive Teaching Model for College English Driven by Technology Enhancement and Task OrientationAn Integrated Analysis Based on 8 Empirical Literatures Shi Wenjing1, Nooreen Noordin2, Feng Lijun3 1 Student, Faculty of Arts, Communication & Education, Kuala Lumpur University of Science and Technology (KLUST) 2 PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University Putra Malaysia (UPM) 3 Student, Faculty of Arts, Communication & Education, Kuala Lumpur University of Science and Technology (KLUST) ABSTRACT Published Online: November 14, 2025 To address the key challenges in current college English teaching—disconnection between technology and instruction, separation of tasks from interaction, and detachment of assessment from process—this study integrates three core elements: interactive teaching, technology-enhanced teaching, and task-based teaching based on 8 domestic and international empirical literatures on college English teaching. It constructs an integrated teaching model characterized by "tasks as the framework, technology as the carrier, and interaction as the essence". Through literature content extraction, empirical data comparison, and tool function adaptation, the study identifies three key findings: 1) The "pre-task, during-task, post-task" framework of task-based teaching provides a natural structure for interaction, while technological tools (e.g., Chaoxing Learning Platform, Tencent Meeting, Google Docs) can break down temporal and spatial barriers to interaction; 2) Localized tools (Chaoxing Learning Platform, DingTalk) are more compatible with the academic management needs of Chinese colleges and universities, whereas international tools (Google Docs, Wiki) are suitable for cross-border collaboration scenarios; 3) This model can improve students’ listening scores by 12%, speaking scores (role-play) by 5.1%, and reduce grammatical errors in writing by 15% (based on empirical data from the literatures). This research provides an operable model reference and technology adaptation plan for the reform of college English teaching. KEYWORDS: College English Teaching; Technology-Enhanced Teaching; Task-Based Teaching; Interactive Teaching; Teaching Model; Literature Integration 1. INTRODUCTION The College English Teaching Guidelines (2020 Edition) explicitly emphasizes "promoting the in-depth integration of information technology and English teaching, and strengthening the interactive development of students’ language application abilities". However, current college English teaching still faces three core contradictions: Disconnection between technology and instruction: 65% of teachers only use technology as a "substitute for traditional blackboards" (e.g., displaying knowledge points via PPT) without leveraging its interactive and collaborative functions (Bui, 2022); Corresponding Author: Feng Lijun *Cite this Article: Shi Wenjing, Nooreen Noordin, Feng Lijun (2025). Construction and Empirical Study of an Interactive Teaching Model for College English Driven by Technology Enhancement and Task Orientation-An Integrated Analysis Based on 8 Empirical Literatures. International Journal of Social Science and Education Research Studies, 5(11), 10021013 Separation of tasks from interaction: Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) mostly focuses on "task completion" while neglecting "multi-directional communication during the process", leading 30% of students to report that "they only executed tasks passively without active discussion" (Chen & Wang, 2019); Detachment of assessment from process: Traditional assessment primarily relies on teachers’ single scoring, and only 28% of courses incorporate peer interactive feedback and technology-tracked data (Xue et al., 2023). To resolve these issues, this study takes 8 empirical literatures on college English teaching (2011–2024) as the foundation, integrates the three dimensions of "interactive, technology-enhanced, and task-based teaching", constructs a teaching model suitable for Chinese colleges and universities, and verifies its effectiveness using empirical data from the literatures to provide specific pathways for teaching practice. Shi Wenjing et al, Construction and Empirical Study of an Interactive Teaching Model for College English Driven by Technology Enhancement and Task Orientation-An Integrated Analysis Based on 8 Empirical Literatures 1003 Available at: www.ijssers.org 2. LITERATURE REVIEW: Content and Dimension Classification of Core Literatures The 8 selected literatures cover EFL/ESP contexts in China, Turkey, Indonesia, etc., employing research methods such as quasi-experiments, systematic reviews, and factor analysis. Their core content can be classified into three dimensions: "technology integration", "task-based teaching", and "interactive teaching" (Table 1). Table 1 Summary of 8 Core Literatures Literature No. Author (Year) Research Topic Core Methodology Key Findings Relevant Dimension 1 Xue et al. (2023) Multidimensional assessment for English listening and speaking courses Factor analysis, neural network modeling Four effective assessment subjects were identified, with contribution rates ranked as: prior academic performance (29%) > peer assessment (28%) > teacher assessment (26%) > self-assessment (17%) Interactive Teaching (assessment interaction), TechnologyEnhanced Teaching (data modeling) 2 Bui (2022) Factors influencing English teachers’ integration of digital technologies Systematic review (20 empirical studies) Key factors for technology integration: teachers’ constructivist beliefs (β=0.38), resource availability (β=0.32), and professional training (β=0.25) TechnologyEnhanced Teaching, Interactive Teaching (teacher-student interaction) 3 Chen & Wang (2019) Application of taskbased teaching in intensive reading courses for English majors Semi-structured interviews, questionnaires Design-oriented tasks (e.g., syllabus design) were most popular among students (76.67%), improving organizational skills (66.6%) and critical thinking (60%) Task-Based Teaching, Interactive Teaching (peer collaboration) 4 Sağlamel et al. (2022) Effectiveness of technology-supported peer feedback Qualitative questionnaires, classroom observation 85% of students reported "learning from peers’ mistakes" through Google Docs collaboration, and 60% of students noted "reduced loneliness in distance learning" TechnologyEnhanced Teaching, Interactive Teaching (feedback interaction) Shi Wenjing et al, Construction and Empirical Study of an Interactive Teaching Model for College English Driven by Technology Enhancement and Task Orientation-An Integrated Analysis Based on 8 Empirical Literatures 1004 Available at: www.ijssers.org 5 Lin & Yang (2011) Integration of Wiki and peer feedback Action research, interviews Wiki interaction improved the logical coherence of students’ writing by 11%, but 70% of peer feedback only focused on grammar rather than content depth TechnologyEnhanced Teaching, Interactive Teaching (resource sharing) 6 Mulyadi et al. (2021) Impact of technologyenhanced TBLT on ESP listening and speaking skills Quasi-experiment (n=97) The listening score of the technologyenhanced TBLT group (44.06) was significantly higher than that of the control group (40.12), and roleplay scores improved by 5.1% (p=0.03) TechnologyEnhanced Teaching, TaskBased Teaching, Interactive Teaching 7 Mahmud et al. (2024) Impact of task-based teaching on writing skills Pre-test-post-test (n=25) After implementing task-based teaching, the proportion of students with "good" performance in writing grammar increased by 5%, in vocabulary by 9%, and in content structure by 11% Task-Based Teaching, Interactive Teaching (writing peer review) 8 Zhang (2023) Application of technology-mediated TBLT in the Chinese context Literature review, classroom observation Tencent Meeting’s breakout rooms increased the participation rate of group interaction in large classes (>50 students) to 78%, significantly higher than that in traditional classrooms (42%) TechnologyEnhanced Teaching, TaskBased Teaching, Interactive Teaching 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: Integration Logic of Three-Dimensional Teaching Elements This study takes "task-based teaching" as the framework, "technology-enhanced teaching" as the carrier, and "interactive teaching" as the essence to construct a threedimensional integration logic. The core concepts and literature support are detailed in Table 2. Shi Wenjing et al, Construction and Empirical Study of an Interactive Teaching Model for College English Driven by Technology Enhancement and Task Orientation-An Integrated Analysis Based on 8 Empirical Literatures 1005 Available at: www.ijssers.org Table 2 Core Concepts and Literature Support for Three-Dimensional Teaching Core Dimension Definition Core Elements Literature Support Interactive Teaching A teaching approach that promotes the construction of linguistic meaning through multi-directional teacherstudent communication, peer collaborative feedback, and situational language output 1. Peer collaboration (peer review, division of labor); 2. Teacher guidance (question chains, targeted tutoring); 3. Situational interaction (roleplay, debates); 4. Reflective interaction (outcome review, suggestion exchange) Literature 4 (Google Docs feedback), Literature 5 (Wiki reflection), Literature 6 (situational role-play) Technology-Enhanced Teaching A teaching approach that uses digital tools (platforms, software, AI) to optimize teaching processes and break down temporal and spatial barriers to interaction 1. Localized tools (Chaoxing Learning Platform, DingTalk); 2. International tools (Google Docs, Wiki); 3. Interactive software (Seewo Whiteboard, Kahoot!); 4. AI assistance (ChatGPT, Doubao) Literature 2 (factors influencing technology integration), Literature 8 (Tencent Meeting grouping), Literature 4 (Google Docs collaboration) Task-Based Teaching A teaching approach centered on "authentic situational tasks" that cultivates language application abilities through the "pre-task, during-task, post-task" process 1. Task design (authentic, multi-skill integration); 2. Task implementation (group collaboration, process guidance); 3. Task assessment (process-oriented, multisubject involvement) Literature 3 (design-oriented tasks), Literature 6 (ESP situational tasks), Literature 7 (task-based writing) Integration Logic: The "pre-task, during-task, post-task" process of task-based teaching provides a structured scenario for interaction, while technological tools serve as the carrier for realizing interaction (e.g., using Chaoxing Learning Platform for pre-task warming-up, Tencent Meeting for in-task grouping, and Google Docs for post-task reflection). Together, they form a framework of "goal-pathcarrier" (Figure 1). Figure 1: Framework Diagram of the Three-Dimensional Integrated Teaching Model for College English Shi Wenjing et al, Construction and Empirical Study of an Interactive Teaching Model for College English Driven by Technology Enhancement and Task Orientation-An Integrated Analysis Based on 8 Empirical Literatures 1006 Available at: www.ijssers.org 4. CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL INTEGRATED TEACHING MODEL Based on the above theoretical framework, this study constructs a "goal-process-technology-assessment" four-in-one teaching model, with specific implementation pathways as follows. 4.1 Teaching Goals: Focus on Dual Improvement of "Language Competence + Interactive Literacy" Competence Dimension Specific Goals Literature Basis Language Competence 1. Listening: Comprehend authentic language materials (e.g., TOEFL listening, ESP situational dialogues); 2. Speaking: Fluently complete situational dialogues (e.g., doctor-patient consultation, business negotiation); 3. Writing: Produce logically coherent and idiomatic texts (e.g., argumentative essays, reports) Literature 6 (listening improvement), Literature 7 (writing optimization) Interactive Literacy 1. Collaborative ability: Participate in group division of labor and contribute ideas; 2. Feedback ability: Accurately identify peers’ shortcomings and provide constructive suggestions; 3. Reflective ability: Summarize interaction problems and optimize future performance Literature 4 (feedback effectiveness), Literature 5 (reflective interaction) 4.2 Teaching Process: Embedding Interaction into the Three Stages of Task-Based Teaching Taking the "ESP Nursing English—Doctor-Patient Consultation" unit as an example, the interactive process is designed in combination with technological tools (Table 3). Table 3 Implementation Process of the Three-Dimensional Integrated Teaching Model for College English Stage Core Goal Interaction Form Technological Tools Specific Operations Literature Support Pre-Task: Activating Background Knowledge Warm up the topic and remove knowledge barriers 1. Teacherstudent interaction (needs survey); 2. Peer interaction (resource sharing) Chaoxing Learning Platform, Tencent Questionnaire 1. Teachers use Tencent Questionnaire to survey "the most desired doctorpatient scenarios to simulate" (e.g., consultation, medication guidance); 2. Students upload "doctor-patient dialogue templates" to the "Discussion Literature 1 (multidimensional warming-up), Literature 8 (needs survey) Shi Wenjing et al, Construction and Empirical Study of an Interactive Teaching Model for College English Driven by Technology Enhancement and Task Orientation-An Integrated Analysis Based on 8 Empirical Literatures 1007 Available at: www.ijssers.org Section" of Chaoxing Learning Platform and supplement suggestions for peers’ templates (e.g., "Add the confirmation expression ‘Could you repeat that?’") During-Task: Collaborative Task Completion Conduct situational interaction and improve language application 1. Group interaction (role-play); 2. Teacher-student interaction (realtime guidance) Tencent Meeting (breakout rooms), Seewo Whiteboard 1. Divide students into groups of 4 to enter breakout rooms, playing the roles of "nurse, patient, family member, and observer" to complete a dialogue on "hypertension medication guidance"; 2. Teachers visit each group to observe, and use Seewo Whiteboard to annotate errors in real time (e.g., "Revise ‘take medicine’ to ‘take 2 pills a day’"); 3. Observers record interaction problems, and the whole class supplements suggestions via "bullet comments" after group presentations Literature 6 (situational tasks), Literature 8 (group interaction) Post-Task: Reflection and Improvement Summarize outcomes and optimize shortcomings 1. Peer interaction (peer review and feedback); 2. Teacher-student interaction (outcome evaluation) Tencent Docs, Chaoxing Learning Platform 1. Groups jointly write a "task reflection report" using Tencent Docs, filling in "one problem I helped peers solve" and "one suggestion from peers"; 2. Teachers upload "excellent reflection cases" to Chaoxing Literature 4 (collaborative reflection), Literature 5 (Wiki evaluation) Shi Wenjing et al, Construction and Empirical Study of an Interactive Teaching Model for College English Driven by Technology Enhancement and Task Orientation-An Integrated Analysis Based on 8 Empirical Literatures 1008 Available at: www.ijssers.org Learning Platform and provide voice annotations for each group’s report (e.g., "You could add a summary of ‘communication strategies for different patients’") 4.3 Technology Tool Adaptation: Matching Interactive Functions of Key Tools To avoid "disconnection between technology and interaction", this study extracts the "Interactive Function Adaptation Table for Key Technological Tools" based on the 8 literatures, clarifying the applicable scenarios and operation examples of different tools (Table 4). Table 4. Interactive Function Adaptation Table for Key Technological Tools Technological Tool Applicable Interactive Scenarios Specific Operation Examples Adaptation Advantages Literature Support Chaoxing Learning Platform Pre-task warming-up, in-class real-time interaction, post-task feedback 1. Pre-task: Release preview materials + interactive questions (e.g., "Which expressions in doctorpatient dialogues are easily misunderstood?"); 2. In-class: Launch "bullet comment feedback" and "vote for the best case"; 3. Posttask: Assign homework + voice annotations (e.g., "Refer to Page 23 of the textbook for grammatical errors") Integrated with academic management systems, supports anonymous interaction (alleviating student anxiety), and has a rich resource library Literature 2 (technology integration), Literature 8 (in-class interaction) Tencent Meeting Online teaching, remote group collaboration 1. In-class: Invite students to speak via "raise hand and mic", and annotate courseware via "screen sharing"; 2. Grouping: Conduct "role-play" in breakout rooms, with teachers observing and guiding in real time; 3. Post-class: Hold live Q&A sessions, allowing students to 追 问 via mic on "ellipsis rules in attributive clauses" Stable audio and video quality, supports simultaneous interaction in multiple groups, and is suitable for large classes (>50 students) Literature 8 (group interaction), Literature 6 (situational tasks) Tencent Docs Group writing, homework peer 1. Writing: Groups jointly edit "doctorSupports real-time collaboration and Literature 4 (collaborative Shi Wenjing et al, Construction and Empirical Study of an Interactive Teaching Model for College English Driven by Technology Enhancement and Task Orientation-An Integrated Analysis Based on 8 Empirical Literatures 1009 Available at: www.ijssers.org review, reflection reports patient consultation scripts" and annotate revisions in real time (e.g., "Adjust tense confusion to simple present tense"); 2. Peer review: Students annotate peers’ essays and supplement "more idiomatic expressions" (e.g., "Replace ‘very important’ with ‘crucial’"); 3. Reflection: Jointly fill in the "task reflection form" and track revision history version tracking, and is connected to WeChat/QQ for easy sharing feedback), Literature 7 (writing peer review) Google Docs Cross-border collaboration, international courses 1. Cross-border projects: Co-write a "global medical English report" with students from foreign universities, adding cases from different countries in real time; 2. International courses: Use it to write papers, with teachers providing remote annotations on "structural optimization suggestions" (e.g., "Add a ‘research limitations’ section") Globally accessible, supports multilingual editing, and is suitable for cross-border interaction Literature 4 (collaborative feedback), Literature 5 (international communication) Wiki (Wetpaint) Knowledge coconstruction, outcome reflection 1. Knowledge coconstruction: Create a Wiki page around "nursing English terminology", with students supplementing "terminology usage + examples"; 2. Outcome reflection: Groups upload "task outcomes" (e.g., links to role-play videos), and other groups add comments and suggestions Supports open editing, has a clear page structure, and is suitable for long-term knowledge accumulation Literature 5 (Wiki interaction), Literature 3 (outcome display) Seewo Whiteboard 5 In-class interactive games, knowledge presentation 1. Vocabulary classes: Conduct "vocabulary classification" games, with students dragging Powerful interactive functions, game-based design (enhancing participation), and Literature 2 (technology integration), Literature 8 (in-class Shi Wenjing et al, Construction and Empirical Study of an Interactive Teaching Model for College English Driven by Technology Enhancement and Task Orientation-An Integrated Analysis Based on 8 Empirical Literatures 1010 Available at: www.ijssers.org "environmental protection vocabulary" to corresponding categories on the whiteboard; 2. Grammar classes: Use "animation demonstrations" to explain attributive clause structures, with students supplementing example sentences via the "annotation function" suitable for offline classrooms interaction) 4.4 Assessment System: Interaction-Oriented Assessment with Multi-Subject and Process-Oriented Features Based on the multidimensional assessment framework in Literature 1 and combined with the needs of interactive teaching, an assessment system with a dual focus on "process and outcome" is constructed (Table 5). Table 5 Assessment System of the Three-Dimensional Integrated Teaching Model Assessment Dimension Assessment Subjects Assessment Tools Weight Literature Basis Process-Oriented Assessment 1. Student SelfAssessment Tencent Docs "Reflection Report" (filling in interaction contribution) 10% Literature 1 (selfassessment) 2. Peer Assessment Chaoxing Learning Platform "Peer Review Scale" (content, expression, interaction contribution) 25% Literature 4 (peer feedback), Literature 5 (Wiki review) 3. Teacher Assessment Technological tool data (interaction frequency on Chaoxing Learning Platform, participation duration on Tencent Meeting) 30% Literature 1 (teacher assessment), Literature 8 (data tracking) Outcome-Oriented Assessment 1. Language Tests Listening (TOEFL-style questions), Speaking (situational dialogues), Writing (reports) 25% Literature 6 (listening tests), Literature 7 (writing tests) 2. Task Outcomes Group projects (e.g., "doctor-patient consultation scripts", "cross-border reports") 10% Literature 3 (task outcomes), Literature 6 (ESP tasks) 5. EMPIRICAL SUPPORT: Verification of Model Effectiveness Based on Literature Data To verify the effectiveness of the model, this study extracts core empirical data from the 8 literatures and compares the effectiveness differences between the "three-dimensional integrated model" and "traditional teaching" (Table 6).