2022-Affordances and Challenges of Teaching Language Skills by Virtual Reality - A Systematic Review (2010-2020)

Article
E-Learning and Digital Media

2022, Vol. 19(2) 163–188
Affordances and challenges of © The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
teaching language skills by virtual sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20427530211036583
journals.sagepub.com/home/ldm
reality: A systematic review
(2010–2020)
Akbar Bahari 
Department of English Language Teaching, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
Abstract
The emergence of newer educational technologies provides opportunities for computer-assisted
language learning practitioners and software developers to capitalize on the affordances for the
second language (L2) learning purposes. This article explored and brought together the reported
affordances and challenges of virtual reality to teach the L2 receptive and productive skills by
reviewing seventy-five peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2020. The results revealed an
imbalanced trend of research on language skills learning by virtual reality tools and affordances in
favor of listening and speaking skills compared to reading and writing skills. The obtained data were
tabularized in terms of language skills. The results were visualized by hierarchical database formats.
Pedagogical implications of the study inform teachers about affordances available to teach L2 skills in
educational virtual reality environments toward a more digitally enhanced L2 pedagogy. Theoretical
implications of the study inform researchers about the challenges that need to be addressed.
Keywords
Augmented and virtual reality, distance education and learning, pedagogical issues, receptive and
productive skills
Introduction
Virtual reality (VR) technology as an emerging educational technology has attracted several studies
in the field of language learning (see Lin and Lan, 2015; Reinders, 2018; Stockwell & Reinders,
2019). However, despite increasingly frequent studies carried out in the field, there are several
unexplored research possibilities (Barrett et al., 2020; Lan, 2020). This gap can be attributed to the
quickly emerging nature of technologies and the shortage of accessibility to the required VR
environment tools. The present systematic review was conducted to find out the strengths and
Corresponding author:
Akbar Bahari, Department of English Language Teaching, Urmia University, Urmia 57153, Iran.
Email: akbarbahari2020@gmail.com
164 E-Learning and Digital Media 19(2)
weaknesses of teaching language skills by the use of VR environment technology based on the current
research. Despite reported efficacy of VR environment language learning functions in general, it is
highly critical to determine the share of each language skill in particular. To this end, a systematic review
of the current research was conducted to inform the practitioners about tested and confirmed linguistic
gains in terms of language skills. The study also focused on reported challenges and limitations of
teaching language skills by VR environment technology to inform scholars and computer programmers
about theoretical and technological challenges that need to be addressed to facilitate teaching language
skills by VR environment technology.
Virtual reality
Virtual reality as an emerging technology that refers to a simulated experience of a world (real or
imagined) that can be used for a variety of educational purposes including second language (L2)
learning by different programs (e.g., ImmerseMe, Virtual Speech, etc.). VR is described both in
terms of associated devices and functions as a 3D graphics interacted via computer or mobile
(Barrett et al., 2020).
VR environment creates a sense of presence (Psotka, 1995) in computer-simulated environment
that enables users to experience telepresence during learning process (Alalwana et al., 2020;
Minocha et al., 2017) and benefits learners with high levels of authenticity, immersion, and in-
teraction (Alqahtani et al., 2017) by offering adaptive tools and affordances (Kashada et al., 2018).
VR environment enables users to experience physical interaction with virtual worlds along with
cognitive processing thereof to create the feeling of presence (Eisenlauer, 2020). This feature fosters
knowledge sharing and community building (Cochrane, 2016) and creates personally meaningful
moments that facilitate learning process (Hu-Au and Lee, 2017). This environment goes beyond
copying reality and provides a sociolinguistics-informed environment that develops language learners’
understanding and knowledge of multilingual culture (Buendgens-Kosten, 2020; Gillespie, 2020).
VR environment goes beyond potentials (creation and delivery of content) and limitations (being
recipient or observer of content) of 360-degree media and reportedly offers the benefits of both
technology-assisted language learning and face-to-face language learning (York et al., 2020). It
enables users to move around freely in proposed worlds, to anticipate user agency and interaction, to
create meaning of what captures their attention by cognitive processing, and to envision immersive
spaces while drafting and shooting sceneries (Tricart, 2018).
VR is employed by researchers to refer to different functions of VR environments (e.g., gaming,
instruction, etc.); however, the current study aimed at reporting affordances (i.e., tested and
confirmed efficacies) and challenges (i.e., tested and confirmed limitations) of VR environments
equipped with high-immersion devices as well as immersive technologies for teaching language
skills. Therefore, the following section provides an overview of extant literature on VR affordances
and challenges to shed light on the background and current progress of studies exploring potentials
of VR environment to develop language skills.
Extant literature
VR Affordances. VR, in general, offers affordances that facilitate language learning experiences that
are inaccessible in other technology-based environments (Jensen and Konradsen, 2018; Parmaxi,
2020), and in particular improves second language (L2) learners’ productive skills more than
receptive skills (Wang et al., 2017; Yamazaki, 2018). VR, by offering contextualization of concepts
in 360° and 3D (Vieira Monteiro and Pfeiffer, 2020) and immersion (i.e., creating a feeling of an
Bahari 165
illusion of non-mediation between user and the virtual world), caters for the nonlinearity and
dynamicity of L2 motivational factors in learners (Cho, 2018; Park, 2018). VR affordances re-
portedly engage learners in user-embodied cognitive processes (Shin, 2017) and enriched input
(Ebert et al., 2016; Lau and Lee, 2015). VR environment needs to be explored by large-scale studies
(Melchor-Couto, 2018; Yamazaki, 2018) to expand our theoretical and pedagogical insight con-
cerning its potentials and limitations for language learning purposes (Li et al., 2014; Lu, et al., 2011).
VR also facilitates establishing collaborative learning environments in which learners interact to
complete tasks (Huang et al., 2016) by mobile-augmented reality (Sydorenko et al., 2019) that enhances
intracultural awareness (Yeh et al., 2020). In-time interaction by VR reportedly facilitates deep learning
by contextualizing instruction (Chen, et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c; Hsu, 2017) and enhances learners’
intercultural sensitivity by designing motivating content and context (Li et al., 2020).
VR reportedly improves language learning (Garrido-Iñigo and Rodrı́guez-Moreno, 2015; Lin and
Lan, 2015) and offers a variety of affordances. It improves L2 learners’ vocabulary and language
skills by desk-top–based and mobile-rendered head-mounted displays and offering interactive and
context-embedded learning environments (Alfadil, 2020; Tai et al., 2020) as well as immersive
virtual environments (Lawrence and Ahmed, 2020; Peeters, 2020). As a low-cost alternative,
spherical video–based VR approach (i.e., use of 3D photos and videos to create an authentic-like
immersive virtual learning context) makes it possible for learners to be engaged in conducting an
immersive learning experience (Geng et al., 2017; Sung et al., 2017). VR environment reportedly
develops learners’ speaking proficiency while reducing their speech anxiety and enhances their
higher order thinking (Sun et al., 2018) by facilitating cognitive processing and making meaning.
VR challenges. Despite the aforementioned affordances reported over the past two decades, the
shortage of research elaborating on a variety of limitations remains as a challenge ahead of VR
environment researchers (Lin and Lan, 2015). Confirming this limitation, Hartwick (2018) states
that “As opportunities for language learning and teaching in virtual worlds emerge, so too do new
research questions. An understanding of research design benefits and limitations is timely” (p.1).
Expanding studies in VR environment can potentially change teachers’ attitudes concerning the
efficacy of it and provide teachers with more evidence to make right decisions concerning edu-
cational affordances of VR tools in teaching language skills.
The next challenge is the variety of scope of usage of each VR technology used for learning
language skills (Scrivner et al., 2019) that calls upon further research to improve our understanding
of the tested and reported efficacy of VR pedagogical programs. To address this problem, the present
study listed the reported affordances and challenges to provide both VR practitioners and re-
searchers with a systematic review report highlighting reported strengths and weaknesses.
The next problem was skeptical attitude of teachers and learners toward the efficacy of VR
environment for developing language skills (Rienties et al., 2020) that can be attributed to lack of
comprehensive knowledge about VR potentials and limitations. To bridge this gap, the present study
aimed at conveying current progress in VR research elaborating on language skills development.
The findings provide evidence concerning the reported potentials that can justify L2 teachers and
learners to use VR environment to develop language skills with less skepticism.
Purpose of this study

Bridging the gap of a review article in the literature elaborating on developing language skills by VR
environment tools and highlighting the affordances and challenges reported by studies conducted
from 2010 to 2020 was the main objective of the study. The article conveys the findings of 75
articles to teachers and researchers who intend to use VR environment for pedagogical and ex-
perimental purposes.
The findings are intended to inform the practitioners and software developers of the field about
the need to address particular challenges to overcome technological limitations in teaching second
language skills. For example, calling upon introducing changes in design choices, improving
character view-panning, and adding differing difficulty levels (Garcia et al., 2019) to facilitate
instruction by VR.
Identifying and discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed studies from a critical
perspective was the next objective of the study. For example, a recent meta-analysis conducted by
Wang et al. (2019) reported that 3D VR substantially facilitated linguistic gains; however, the study
failed to determine the share of each language skill as part of the facilitated linguistic gains.
The narrow scope of research regarding L2 learning by VR environment (Ebert et al., 2016) was
the next reason to conduct a systematic review in order to inform the practitioners and software
developers of the field (teachers and researchers) about the challenges and affordances reported by
studies using VR environment tools to develop L2 receptive and productive skills.
The articles included in the study were rigorously reviewed to collect the required data in
response to the following research question:
· What are the most frequently reported affordances and challenges of using virtual reality to
teach language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing)?
Method
Data source and search strategy
To capture the affordances and challenges ahead of L2 teachers using VR environment to teach
receptive and productive language skills, the publication dates of conceptual and empirical articles
published by journals specializing in technology-based language learning research were set to the
years 2010–2020. Seventy-five peer-reviewed articles (e.g., research report articles, critical review
articles, and conceptual articles) elaborating on language skills learning in virtual worlds were
included in the study. In keeping with Smith and Lafford (2009), articles were screened in terms of
their relevance to research needs (language skills teaching/learning), relevance to virtual reality–
assisted language learning, and significance of contributions to the field. The results were displayed
as a hierarchy of affordances and challenges to highlight their frequency and provide a reader-
friendly visual report of the findings in terms of language skills (see Figures 2–4 and 5).
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
To ensure the inclusion of all major findings in the field, major related databases such as Wiley,
ERIC, Sage, EBSCO, Taylor and Francis (Tandf), Web of science (WOS), and Emerald were
searched to the point of saturation. Given the heterogeneous nature of selected studies that
elaborated on different topics (i.e., language skills), meta-analysis that usually elaborates on similar
topics was not included in the study based on previous recommendations (Garg et al., 2008).
To arrive at a comprehensive set of relevant studies, potentially relevant sources were
systematically screened and tested by searching for keywords (e.g., challenges of L2 learning
by virtual reality, affordances of L2 learning by virtual reality, L2 reading by virtual reality,
L2 writing by virtual reality, L2 listening by virtual reality, and L2 speaking by virtual reality) to
Bahari 167
identify relevant sources in primary electronic databases and platforms plus hand searching of
related key journals, networks and associations, personal contacting, websites, and literature
snowballing (see Figure 1).
Results
Results to listening development by VR
Figure 2 displays the hierarchy of the most frequently reported affordances and challenges of using
VR to teach L2 listening skill from 2010 to 2020. The ascending order of challenges and affordances
with respect to their observed frequency provides a snapshot of advantages and issues ahead of the
CALL practitioners and software developers who intended to utilize VR for teaching L2 listening
skill. The challenges and affordances at the top of the hierarchy are the most frequently reported by
the reviewed studies and those at the bottom are the least emphasized ones (see Figure 2).
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the screening and selection procedure.

Figure 2. Comparative hierarchy of reported affordances and challenges of using VR to teach L2 listening.
Affordances
Virtual interactive learning tasks (36%). Exploring the efficacy of embodied agents in auditory, visual,
and haptic channels of pedagogical interaction, Hassani et al. (2013) reported the affordance of
embodied conversational agents in developing listening and speaking skills. Exploring the po-
tentials of VR for second language teaching, Peixoto et al. (2019) reported the affordance of
potentiating listening skill by designing learning tasks within VR environment as well as creating
positive perceptions among second language teachers regarding the efficacy of VR tools as a
medium to practice listening activities.
Embodied conversational agents (27%). Lan et al. (2018a, 2018b) explored the effects of embodied
learning types on listening comprehension in terms of 3D avatar versus real body and confirmed the
affordance of 3D avatars in developing learners’ listening performance. The main pedagogical
implication of their finding lies in the priority and efficacy of 3D virtual avatar as an embodied
learning type over non-embodied learning type that can be used by teachers to develop listening
performance of the learners. The findings reported by Lan et al. (2018a) were in keeping with
previous studies that supported embodied cognition in language learning/teaching (Macedonia and
Knösche, 2011; Willems and Casasanto, 2011).
Real-time evaluation of oral skills (13%). Hassani et al. (2013) confirmed the affordance of real-time
evaluation of oral skills in intelligent virtual environments adapted for language learning purposes
reported by previous studies (Emonts et al., 2012). Exploring the effect of scene reality of VR
environment on language learning and learner engagement among English language learners, Sun
et al. (2020) confirmed the affordance of VR environment in enhancing learners’ engagement in
learning. It was confirmed that the higher the scene reality, the easier the evaluation of body
language richness, fluency, accuracy, and coherence of pronunciation for the teachers who use VR
environment for teaching and evaluation.
Situated learning in delivering L2 listening exercises (10%). Exploring the efficacy of virtual worlds in
developing aviation English, Park (2018) reported the efficacy of virtual interactive tasks in
Bahari 169
improving linguistic competence, situated learning, and learning motivation. Park (2018) suggested
expanding research on virtual worlds’ potential for language assessment arguing that the virtual
world provides information about the use of situated cognition on the part of the test taker plus
verbal responses.
Developing listening skill by authentic learning opportunities (8%). Exploring the pedagogical efficacy of
VR in L2 skills teaching, Chen (2016) reported the affordances of interactive learning opportunities
and developing morphological, phonological, and grammar knowledge by offering contextual
learning. Elaborating on the affordances of VR, Chen (2016) confirms the previous findings that this
technology-based medium facilitates acquiring linguistic knowledge (Berman, 2007) that even-
tually results in learning success.
Developing learners’ cognitive abilities and autonomy (6%). Chien et al. (2019) explored the efficacy of
a spherical video-based VR environment for speaking training and confirmed the affordances of the
system in terms of developing speaking performance and reducing anxiety as part of learners’
cognitive abilities. Yeh and Lan (2018) confirmed the affordance of developing learner autonomy by
3D virtual world and emphasized on the significance of praise feedback in enhancing speaking
performance of the EFL learners as reported by the interviewees.
Challenges
Handling learners’ stress (48%). Exploring the impact of VR environment on learners’ cognitive
development, Chen (2016) called upon future studies to address learners’ stress while confirming
the affordances of VR environment in developing learners’ higher level of thinking as well as
morphological, phonological, and grammar knowledge. One of the main challenges that can cause
anxiety among the learners in VR environment is reportedly “the type of virtual audience” (Van
Ginkel, et al., 2019, 79).
Integration of commercial resources of VR for classroom activities (24%). Calling upon further studies
elaborating on the use of VR environment in foreign language teaching, Frazier et al. (2018)
reported the challenge of integrating available tools on commercial platforms to create learning
scenarios. Moving away from traditional approaches and integrating VR tools and technologies in
foreign language teaching are among the challenges highlighted by several studies (Berns et al.,
2016).
Reducing cognitive load of using head-mounted displays (10%). In keeping with other studies (Wang
et al., 2015), Peixoto et al. (2019) emphasized on the challenge of converting the established
technology-based learning theories into new pedagogical practices to reduce cognitive load. While
Makransky et al. (2019) described cognitive load as an inherent part of using head-mounted
displays, “cognitive load is inherent with the use of head-mounted displays” (p.227), Jain et al.
(2020) confirmed the efficacy of VR environment in reducing language reading. To overcome this
limitation, Jain et al. (2020) suggested automatic text visualization in VR environment to assist
those who have reading comprehension difficulties (e.g., dyslexia).
Exploring relationship between increased realism & learning outcomes (7%). Exploring the potential of
VR, Pinto et al. (2019) highlighted the gap of literature concerning the relationship between in-
creased realism and learning outcomes as the challenge ahead of the CALL practitioners and
software developers while confirming the affordance of situated learning in delivering L2 listening
exercises (Table 1).
Table 2 displays a sample of the most frequently reported affordances and challenges of using VR
to teach L2 listening skill from 2010 to 2020.
Results to speaking development by VR

VR to teach L2 speaking skill from 2010 to 2020.
Affordances
Language immersion experiences in 3D VR (27%). Exploring the efficacy of VR to improve EFL
learners’ oral performance, Chen (2020) reported the affordance of improving learners’ linguistic
performance in terms of syntactic complexity and linguistic accuracy by 3D multi-user virtual
environments that offer language immersion experiences. While confirming the limitation of VR
environment in large classrooms, York et al. (2020) reported the affordance of VR environment in
developing learners’ speaking skill in keeping with previous studies highlighting features such as
synchronous visual and immersive interactions (Blyth, 2018).
Creating immersive sense & decreased nervousness (23%). Exploring the potentials of VR envi-
ronment in reducing L2 anxiety, Melchor-Couto (2018) reported the affordance of virtual world
anonymity of oral interaction that resulted in decreased nervousness. In addition to confirming the
affordance of VR environment in terms of developing listening proficiency of learners, York et al.
(2020) reported the affordance of reducing foreign language learning anxiety among learners who
used VR environment.
Language learning opportunities without space & time limits (16%). Exploring the potentials of VR, Lan
(2015) reported the affordances of language learning opportunities without the space and time limits
in terms of syntactic and conversation skills and emphasized on the need to validate the affordance
of space in developing conversational abilities. Wang et al. (2012) explored the efficacy of VR
environment in developing oral skills and reported the affordance of oral communicative abilities
such as oral descriptive skills and oral explanatory skills among learners who experienced VR space
and time versus non-virtual space and time. Confirming the efficacy of VR environment for
Table 1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Criteria Inclusion Exclusion
Date 2010–2020 Prior to 2010 and after 2020

Type Peer-reviewed scholarly articles Book chapters, dissertations, technical reports,
and proceedings
Focus Articles on teaching language skills by Articles did not include teaching language skills
VR environment and tools by VR environment and tools
Method/design Quantitative, qualitative, non-empirical, Reviews
and mixed-methods
Language English Other languages
Bahari 171
Table 2. A Sample of reported affordances and challenges of teaching listening skill by VR.
Language Reported issues and Reported affordances and

Author(s) Methodology Participants skill(s) challenges opportunities
Peixoto Quasi- 7 Listening Teachers’ responsibility Positive perceptions of L2

et al. experimental to convert the teachers regarding VRT
(2019) design established as a novel medium for
technology-based offering listening
learning theories into activities to students
new pedagogical
practices
Pinto Quasi- 12 Listening The need to explore the Situated learning in
et al. experimental relationship between delivering L2 listening
(2019) design increased realism and exercises
learning outcomes
Park Mixed-methods 5 Listening Suggesting expanding The efficacy of virtual
(2018) approach research on virtual interactive tasks in
worlds’ potential for improving linguistic
language assessment competence
Chen Quasi- 448 Listening VR develops receptive Developing L2 learners’
(2016) experimental skills more than morphological,
design productive skills and phonological, and
the challenge of grammar knowledge
handling learners’ plus cognitive abilities
stress
Hassani Quasi- 10 Listening & “It is crucial to evaluate The efficacy of embodied
et al. experimental Speaking the system in design agents in visual,
(2013) design time by presenting it auditory, and haptic
to developers to channels of interaction
develop a language
tutoring system”
(p.19)
Note: VR: virtual reality.
language teaching/learning purposes, Xhang (2019) called upon future studies to apply VR en-
vironment to improve language learning and “break the constraints of time and space” (p.4).
Offering age-appropriate content & real-time spoken language evaluation (12%). Exploring the po-
tentials of augmented VR, Dalim et al. (2020) reported the affordance of allowing interactivity and
physical activities, boosting enjoyment, offering age-appropriate content, collaboration, and small
group learning by immersive experience. Cai et al. (2020) reported the affordance of real-time
spoken language evaluation in VR environment by “Digital Reality Theater” that leads to “better
effect on language learning” (p.5).
Encouraging active discovery & switching of scenario (9%). Reporting the efficacy of virtual tools,
Xie et al. (2019) confirmed the affordances of creating immersive sense (i.e., subjective sense of
being present in the scene) and encouraging active discovery among L2 learners who used VR
Figure 3. Comparative hierarchy of affordances and challenges of using VR to teach L2 speaking.
tools. Exploring the efficacy of VR environment, Cai et al. (2020) confirmed the affordance of
interactive switching of scenario that enhanced learners’ engagement and willingness in learning
process.
Virtual world anonymity of oral interaction (7%). To clarify how anonymity benefits L2 learner,
Melchor-Couto (2018) states that “virtual worlds offer much-needed gentle beginning that enables
learners to build up a gradual familiarity with their interlocutor” (p.17). This concluding statement
reflects the author’s view regarding the anonymity as an affordance that serves learners as a
preparatory virtual oral interaction practice to prepare them for the real-life interactions.
Massively multiplayer online-based simulation games (6%). Exploring the potentials of 3D virtual world
to develop communicative skills, Yamazaki (2018) reported the affordances of massively multi-
player online-based simulation games in terms of communicative competencies (including col-
laborative communication and persuasive talk).
Challenges
Methodological limitations (36%). Yamazaki (2018) emphasized on the challenge of methodological
limitations and the need to be addressed by future studies and bridge the gap of methodological
models to be incorporated in L2 teaching by virtual world environments. Scrivner et al. (2019)
called upon further studies to overcome methodological limitations of VR environment for ped-
agogical objectives to address different aspects of learning process.
Integration of commercial resources of VR for classroom activities (21%). The integration of commercial
resources of VR for classroom activities is a challenge ahead of L2 teachers as reported by
MacWhinney (2017) since these resources fail to provide learners with opportunities for spoken
language production. Therefore, they cannot be replaced for classroom programs and need to be
completed with additional pedagogical measures depending on the curriculum.
Bahari 173
To harness the increased immersion (14%). Conducting an exploratory research, Kizilkaya et al.
(2019) reported the efficacy of a suitability toolkit for assessment of VR. Confirming the efficacy of
VR for developing speaking skill, they reported that the challenge ahead of benefiting from the
affordances of VR is the need to harness the increased immersion created by mixed reality ex-
periences for pedagogic design.
Improving learners’ perception of task engagement and relevance (12%). Chen (2020) reported the
challenge of improving learners’ perception of task engagement and relevance as a significant factor
that affects the quality and quantity of learners’ pre-task planning investment. Exploring the efficacy
of speech-enabled augmented reality, Dalim et al. (2020) confirmed higher motivation and learner
engagement in learning process that significantly improved learners’ gain of abstract words. Dalim
et al. (2020) highlighted the challenge of the noise level when it is too high and deteriorates learners’
speech recognition performance.
to teach L2 speaking skill from 2010 to 2020.
Results to reading development by VR

VR to teach L2 reading skill from 2010 to 2020.
Affordances
Game-based VR applications (31%). Exploring the efficacy of VR environment, Chen and Hsu (2020)
reported the affordances of VR game-based environment in terms of improving students’ L2
learning in vocabulary, listening, and reading. Huang et al. (2020a, 2020b, 2020c) confirmed the
efficacy of VR environment in developing language skills by assisting learners to complete col-
laborative communication tasks and enhancing learners’ engagement in learning process.
3D vocabulary learning program (19%). Exploring the efficacy of three-dimensional virtual learning
environment for L2 learning, Tseng et al. (2020) reported the affordance of 3D vocabulary learning
program plus improving learners’ autonomy, active engagement, and collaboration with partners. They
highlighted the role of teacher as a monitor who should intervene in case learners are unable to complete
the task or reassign them if necessary. Exploring the potentials of VR to enhance learning, Hung et al.
(2017) reported the affordance of augmented reality graphic book in terms of offering hands-on and
practical way of exploring the reading text by adding interesting features to motivate learners.
Enhanced learner engagement (13%). Describing VR environment as an engaging way of instruction,

Berti (2020) explored the efficacy of ImmerseMe platform and confirmed the affordance of VR
environment in developing language skills, in particular reading, listening, and speaking skills that
were previously reported by Blake (2011). VR environment not only facilitates out-of-class lan-
guage learning (Holden and Sykes, 2011), it also facilitates creating deep connection between the
learner and the virtual content that enhances learner engagement and positively increases the quality
and quantity of learners’ participation (Gadelha, 2018).
Texts warped around the horizontal axis (10%). Examining the impact of view box widths and warp
angles on reading, Wei et al. (2020) reported the affordances of texts warped around the horizontal
Table 3. A Sample of reported affordances and challenges of teaching speaking skill by VR.
Language Reported issues and Reported affordances and

Chen Quasi- 9 Oral skills Improving learners’ Developing linguistic

(2020) experimental perception of task performance in terms
engagement and of syntactic complexity
relevance and linguistic accuracy
Dalim Quasi- 120 Speaking The noise level when it Efficacy of augmented
et al. experimental is too high and reality with speech
(2020) deteriorates input
learners’ speech
recognition
performance
Kizilkaya Case study NA Speaking The need to harness “The result enabled
et al. the increased progression through
(2019) immersion created interaction, rather
by mixed reality than a natural
experiences for Conversation”(p.135)
pedagogic design
Xie et al. Sequential 12 Oral skills The participants’ Creating immersive sense
(2019) explanatory pronunciation and and encouraging active
mixed- fluency remained discovery
methods stable during
design presentations
Yamazaki Quasi- 11 Oral skills The need to address The affordance of
(2018) experimental the methodological massively multiplayer
limitations of VR online-based simulation
environments for L2 games
teaching & learning
Melchor- Quasi- 14 Oral skills The need to conduct VR world anonymity of
Couto experimental similar studies with oral interaction
(2018) non-native speakers
of the target language
Lan Quantitative- 132 Syntactic & Validating the Opportunities without
(2015) qualitative Linguistic affordance of space the space and time
Skills in developing limits in terms of
conversational skills syntactic and
conversation skills
Note: VR: virtual reality.
axis rather than vertical axis in terms of reading speed, comfort, and distraction. They reported 270–
300 units in all shapes as the preferred view box widths and 50°–55° in all shapes as the preferred
warp angle. Wei et al. (2020) confirmed the affordance of less curved display and higher comfort
level in texts rendered around a cylinder axis; they reported the challenge of distraction in texts
rendered in two-axes warp.
Quick diagnostic/achievement assessment (10%). Exploring the affordances of immersive VR en-

vironment in reading assessment, Junior and Bodzin (2020) confirmed the efficacy of the Captcha
Bahari 175
Figure 4. Comparative hierarchy of reported affordances and challenges of using VR to teach L2 reading.
system and Emojis as pre-reading activity as well assessment activities that not only provides
teacher with feedback but also enhanced learners’ engagement in reading activity.
Challenges
Including game elements to reduce learner anxiety in VR environment (45%). Chen and Hsu (2020)
highlighted the challenge of including “more game elements that reduce learner anxiety in a VRE”
(p.22). They believe that such measures can result in better game-based learning experience that
enhances learners’ language proficiency by effective engagement in learning. Future studies are
suggested to address metacognitive and cognitive strategy development to ensure balance between
game-like experience and learning objectives (Van Ginkel, et al., 2019).
3D text in virtual world instead of flat text in LCD affects the readability (25%). The next challenge ahead
of teaching reading is reported by Jankowski et al. (2010) who argued that the slower reading speed
of readers in virtual world lies in differences between 3D text in virtual world versus flat text in
liquid crystal display (LCD) that affects the readability. To address this challenge, Rau et al. (2018)
conducted a study with a focus on speed reading. They confirmed the differences in terms of reading
speed and recommended that to balance the difficulty level between two environments, designers of
instructional virtual world environments need to give users 10% more time compared to flat text
context to respond to tasks requiring text-processing.
Reducing cognitive load in VR environment (20%). Hung et al. (2017) confirming the results of
previous studies (Dunleavy and Dede, 2014) confirmed the challenge of cognitive overload for
children in VR learning environment. Exploring the relationship between cognitive load and sense
of presence in VR environment, Huang et al. (2020a, 2020b, 2020c) called upon further studies as
they observed inconsistent results and reported that “the components of sense of presence and
cognitive load generate inconsistent predictive effects on affective and cognitive learning out-
comes” (p.596).
to teach L2 reading skill from 2010 to 2020.
Table 4. A Sample of reported affordances and challenges of teaching reading skill by VR.
Language Reported issues and Reported affordances

Author(s) Methodology Participants skill(s) challenges and opportunities
Chen and Quasi- 274 Reading & Including “more The efficacy of the
Hsu experimental Listening & game elements interaction feature
(2020) design Vocabulary that reduce of the VR application
Learning learner anxiety in a in enhancing motivation
VRE”
Tseng Quasi- 96 Vocabulary Including further The findings supported
et al. experimental learning activities in VR the positive effect of
(2020) environments virtual environments in
facilitating vocabulary
learning
Wei et al. Quasi- 18 Reading Distraction in texts The efficacy of texts
(2020) experimental rendered in two- warped around the
axes warp horizontal axis
Hung Quasi- 72 Reading Cognitive overload The efficacy of
et al. experimental for children augmented reality
(2017) graphic book
Note: VR: Virtual reality.
Results to writing development by VR

VR to teach L2 writing skill from 2010 to 2020.
Affordances
Enhanced summative & argumentative academic writing (39%). Exploring the affordances of virtual
communities of practice, Peeters and Pretorius (2020) reported the efficacy of it for improving
academic writing. They emphasized that for developing online instructional interaction and par-
ticipation, teachers and learners need to “find their place within the spaces that have been created”
(p.13). Exploring the impact of VR on writing skill, Lamb et al. (2019) reported the affordance of
enhanced summative and argumentative writing products among learners who received intervention
by VR environment. They reported higher lexical density and writing complexity with as a result of
practicing writing by VR.
Virtual communities of practice & expository writing skills (21%). According to the studies addressing
writing skill, VR environment can potentially improve learners’ writing performance and enhance their
interest in writing task (Allagui, 2021). Exploring the efficacy of Google earth VR, Chen et al. (2020a,
2020b, 2020c) confirmed the efficacy of virtual-assisted writing environment in terms of developing
learners’ expository writing skills. Exploring the efficacy of VR in developing second language pro-
ficiency, Korkalainen et al. (2015) confirmed VR environment affordance in offering practices in official
written form of language (writing, grammar, vocabulary) by simulating real-world–like situations.
Spherical video–based VR (18%). Exploring the efficacy of VR environment, Huang et al. (2020a,
2020b, 2020c) introduced a spherical video–based VR approach and confirmed its affordance in
Bahari 177
Figure 5. Comparative hierarchy of reported affordances and challenges of using VR to teach L2 writing.
developing descriptive article writing performance. They also reported the affordances of the proposed
approach in terms of developing learners’ creative thinking for writing and providing a low-cost and
low-tech solution to develop writing performance of the learners. Exploring the impact of full spherical
views provided by VR environment on foreign language learning, Berns et al. (2018) confirmed the
affordance of spherical views that facilitated creating real-world–like situations to enhance learning
process. Allagui (2021) confirmed the affordance of VR environment in developing learners’ imagi-
nation and descriptive writing skills that enable learners to characterize events and imagine objects.
Improving writing structure (10%). Exploring the efficacy of VR environment in developing writing
skill, Pack et al. (2020) reported the affordance of VR environment in teaching and learning writing
structure and increasing positive attitude among users. Pack et al. (2020) also highlighted on the thin
literature of using VR environment to develop writing skill as a limitation that needs to be addressed
in future studies and expanding language-oriented VR studies beyond oral skills.
Challenges
Distinguishing between writing tasks that develop learners’ reasoning skills (23%). Lamb et al. (2019)
highlighted the need to distinguish between writing tasks that develop learners’ reasoning skills,
understanding of the rationale for writing, and inquiry methods. One of the challenges ahead of
designers and teachers is to consider developing learners’ reasoning skills by encouraging them
to practice writing while putting together meaning and thought and deliver it individually/
collaboratively (Lamb et al., 2019).
Developing learners’ cognitive processing and meaning making skills (20%). Lamb et al. (2019) reported
the challenge of investigating various ways of meaning making (e.g., linguistic, spatial, gestural,
audio, and visual) within VR environment. Some studies (Erlandson, et al., 2010; Liu and Tsai,
et al., 2013) have reported a number of challenges that need to be addressed in future VR en-
vironment studies (e.g., to overcome lack of flexibility in design and integration of educational
material, functionality issues, etc.).
Familiarity of the learners with VR tools (15%). Wang (2017) confirmed the challenge of familiarity of
students with tools available within VR environment reported previously by Liu and Tsai (2013).
Mediating and regulating the use of VR environment tools by the teacher is reportedly a challenge
ahead of the designers as well as users that need to be addressed in future studies (Chang et al.,
2012).
Being time-consuming & distracting and posing integration difficulties (10%). Following the incorpo-
ration of Google Earth VR as an environment to improve learners’ writing, Chen et al. (2020a,
2020b, 2020c) reported the challenges of this VR tool in terms of integration difficulties, distraction,
and being time-consuming.
Physical discomfort & low video quality (10%). Dolgunsöz et al. (2018) examined the efficacy of VR
environment in improving EFL writing skills and reported the challenge of technical limitations
such as physical discomfort and low video quality. They highlighted the feeling of discomfort
expressed by some participants concerning their position in VR environment as a limitation that
requires further analysis.
to teach L2 writing skill from 2010 to 2020 (Table 5).
Discussion
In response to the research question, the study observed a long list of challenges in using VR
environment to improve receptive and productive skills. Despite these challenges, VR as an
Table 5. A Sample of reported affordances and challenges of teaching writing skill by VR.
Reported
Language Reported issues and affordances and
Peeters and Quasi- 157 Academic Teachers and learners The affordances of
Pretorius experimental writing need to “find their place virtual
(2020) Design within the spaces that communities of
have been created” practice
Chen et al. Sequential 22 Writing Being time-consuming and Improving
(2020a, Explanatory distracting expository
2020b, mixed- writing skills
2020c) methods design
Lamb et al. Quasi- 80 Writing Distinguishing between Enhanced
(2019) experimental writing tasks that summative and
Design develop learners’ argumentative
reasoning skills, writing products
understanding of the
rationale for writing,
and inquiry methods
Dolgunsöz Sequential 24 Writing Technical limitations such Promising in the
et al. (2018) exploratory as physical discomfort long term
mixed-method and low video quality
Note: VR: Virtual reality.
Bahari 179
emerging and promising educational technology can potentially overcome instructional challenges
by conducting further research to overcome them (Buendgens-Kosten, 2020; Gillespie, 2020). The
abovementioned reported challenges serve as a reminder to researchers about problems ahead of the
field and the need to be addressed in future studies. Challenges also serve teachers as a reminder of
possible problems that need to be overcome by innovative pedagogical measures prior or during
VR-assisted language teaching.
The study also revealed a variety of affordances that VR offers that can potentially facilitate
teaching L2 receptive and productive skills in terms of learning context and learning strategies. The
findings suggest that VR environment influences and converts learning context in different ways
and creates a learning context that is neither a copy of face-to-face learning context nor a copy
computer-assisted learning context. VR environment offers authentic learning environment by
location-based augmented reality (Lee and Park, 2019) that results in developed scope of learning
and enhanced nonlinear dynamic L2 motivation (Bahari et al., 2021b).
The findings suggest that VR environment offers affordances that foster language skills learning
via different strategies (e.g., contextualized learning, immersive learning, enhanced engagement,
interactive learning, collaborative learning, and scaffolding). The variety of tested and confirmed
strategies reflect the potentials of language learning by VR environment and calls upon further
research to address other strategies (e.g., sociopragmatic learning and pragmalinguistic learning;
Bahari, 2020a; Bahari et al., 2021a).
The observed inconsistency in the number of articles selected for each language skill reflects the
shortage of research in some language skills (reading and writing) compared to others (listening and
speaking). The same inconsistency resulted in less observed affordances for developing reading and
writing skills compared to listening and speaking skills. It is worth mentioning that the shortage of
reported affordances does not reflect inefficacy of VR environment but rather serves as a call for
further research.
This review article provided a detailed view of the reported challenges and affordances of using
VR to teach L2 receptive and productive skills. The hierarchical data can help the CALL prac-
titioners and software developers to identify the challenges and limitations of VR and conduct
necessary studies to overcome them. The affordances of VR vary from one L2 skill to another,
therefore, teachers need to consider the shortcomings and take appropriate pedagogical measures in
advance. The L2 teachers and learners need to collaboratively practice the use of emerging ed-
ucational technologies, in particular VR by varied and ongoing training.
Implications
Theoretical implications. The CALL scholars are recommended to approach the topic of embodied
cognition by contextualizing user-embodied cognitive processes by technology-based tools and
affordances (e.g., embodied games, embodied peers, etc.) to ensure the success of the VR programs
for developing L2 receptive and productive skills. Drawing on the reviewed articles, further studies
are recommended to integrate physical and mental learning processes by contextualizing reading
activities in VR environments (Kolb, 2015). Chen (2016) highlighted a challenge that confirmed the
previous finding reported by Su (2006) that VR develops receptive skills more than productive
skills. Therefore, future studies need to address this challenge and find out the possible reasons
behind the differences.
Given the quantitative restrictions of VR equipment (Chen et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c), the
future studies need to address the difficulty of avoiding free-rider effect in collaborative tasks and
find solutions to overcome this problem. Given the significance of “guiding students in how to
survive in the actual wildness of another language and culture” (Lech and Harris, 2019, 52),
researchers need to develop and introduce strategies to enable learners to benefit the most from VR
environment for L2 learning purposes.
Theoretically, the findings suggest the necessity of applying visualization analytics in future studies
for designing L2 learning environments to guide learners during learning process and finding out
whether there is a relationship between L2 learners’ spatial ability and their L2 learning or not (Hsiao
et al., 2017). Applying visual analytics enables researchers to identify learning paths and learning
strategies with respect to the features of objects and their best arrangement in virtual worlds.
Theoretically, there is a major gap in terms of pedagogical frameworks and models (Zhang et al.,
2020) to offer insights into designing and learning tasks that ensure motivating learners to complete
online courses without losing interest and ensure the relevance of the learning material (Shapiro,
et al., 2017; Wozniak, 2020).
Theoretically, future VR studies are suggested to bridge the gap of less-researched language
skills (reading and writing) by contextualizing and examining VR tools to complete real-life tasks
that require reading and writing activities in VR environment.
Pedagogical implications
Despite the common belief that emerging technologies are often more effective than older ones (see
Levy and Stockwell, 2006) and serve us as “miracle cure-all” (Chambers and Bax, 2006, 465), there
are pedagogical challenges associated with them that require further consideration. Drawing on the
reviewed articles, the CALL teachers need to avoid replacing commercial resources of VR for
classroom activities and include complementary pedagogical adaptations in advance since most of
these resources do not provide opportunities to practice productive skills. Given the high potential of
VR context to support collaborative L2 teaching (Lan et al., 2018a, 2018b; Tseng et al., 2020),
teachers need to take necessary measures to convert the conditions to incorporate VR to support
teaching (e.g., by extending, expanding, and enriching the traditional presentations by integrating
VR elements).
To benefit from the affordance of interactive learning in VR environment for developing L2
learners’ morphological, phonological, and grammar knowledge, teachers are recommended to
engage learners in “virtual field trips, virtual city tours, role playing, and creative construction work
by collaboration with others” (Chen, 2016, 8).
Drawing on reported affordances, pedagogically, teachers are recommended to benefit from VR
environment for developing oral presentation skills and delivering feedback to encourage
deliberately-processed oral presentations (Chollet et al., 2015; Van Ginkel, et al., 2019). To enhance
speaking speed, teachers are recommended to adopt technology-mediated approach to L2 story-
telling to benefit from the affordance of multimodal communicative activities and providing broader
narrative contexts (Liang, 2019). To cater to the nonlinearity and dynamicity of L2 motivation
(Bahari, 2019, 2020b), teachers are recommended to benefit from the affordance of VR tools to
provide learners with impressive experience of writing topic/context and overcome the deficiency of
limited depth of expression (Huang et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c).
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the mainstream studies on language skills learning by virtual world have
moved from descriptive studies with a focus on social interaction, learning outcomes, and affective
domain (Hew and Cheung, 2010) toward experiential studies with a focus on immersive spaces and
Bahari 181
simulated instructional environments (Kim et al., 2012). Therefore, the current trend of virtual
worlds’ studies is in an ongoing process of theory building, expanding experimental studies (Beck
and Perkins, 2014), and contextualizing the complexity of language skills learning by VR
(Boellstorff, 2015; Gregory et al., 2016).
The review of the studies revealed that listening and speaking skills have been more frequently
explored compared to reading and writing skills. This finding confirms the reported challenge that
reading/writing do not marry well to virtual environments (Scavarelli et al., 2021). It also reflects an
imbalanced trend of research on language skills learning and calls upon further studies on reading
and writing skills development by VR environment. As emphasized by Wigham et al. (2018), to
benefit from the multimodal and multilayered potentials of interaction in virtual world for language
learning purposes, there is a need to take a multifaceted approach. Therefore, both receptive and
productive skills need to be addressed by a balanced and comprehensive approach (Wigham et al.,
2018) in future VR-assisted language learning studies to ensure equal development of language
skills (Blyth, 2018) and accelerate the multifaceted integration of VR technology into technology-
assisted language learning pedagogy.
Given the focus of the current study on language skills, other aspects of language learning by VR
environment were not addressed. To overcome this limitation in future studies, it is suggested to
conduct systematic reviews elaborating on adopted research designs in studies reporting results on
the efficacy of teaching language skills by VR technology. This informs the field about the research
quality of VR studies and their possible relationship with language skills.
Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Akbar Bahari  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4575-6480
References
References included in the systematic review are marked with an asterisk and submitted as Ref Supplementary
Alalwana N, Chengb L, Al-Samarraiec H, et al. (2020) Challenges and prospects of virtual reality and
augmented reality utilization among primary school teachers: a developing country perspective. Studies in
Educational Evaluation 66: 100876. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100876
* Alfadil M (2020) Effectiveness of virtual reality game in foreign language vocabulary acquisition. Computers
& Education 153(6): 1–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103893
* Allagui B (2021) Writing a descriptive paragraph using an augmented reality application: an evaluation of
students’ performance and attitudes. Tech Know Learn 26: 687–710. DOI: 10.1007/s10758-019-09429-2
* Alqahtani AS, Daghestani LF and Ibrahim LF (2017) Environments and system types of virtual reality
technology in stem: a survey. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 8(6):
34–55. DOI: 10.14569/IJACSA.2017.080610
Bahari A (2019) FonF practice model from theory to practice: CALL via focus on form approach and nonlinear
dynamic motivation to develop listening and speaking proficiency. Computers & Education 130(3):
40–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.009
Bahari A (2020a) CANDA: computer-assisted nonlinear dynamic approach for the L2 teaching in blended and
distance learning. Interactive Learning Environments 28(6): 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2020.
1805774
Bahari A (2020b) Game-based collaborative vocabulary learning in blended and distance L2 learning. The
Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 35(3): 1–22. DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2020.1814229
Bahari A, Zhang X and Ardasheva Y (2021a) Establishing a nonlinear dynamic individual-centered language
assessment model: a dynamic systems theory approach. Interactive Learning Environments 29(7): 1–15.
DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1950769
Bahari A, Zhang X and Ardasheva Y (2021b) Establishing a computer-assisted interactive reading model.
Computers & Education. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104261
* Barrett A, Pack A, Guo Y, et al. (2020) Technology acceptance model and multi-user virtual reality learning
environments for Chinese language education. Interactive Learning Environments 27(4): 30–46. DOI: 10.
1080/10494820.2020.1855209
* Beck D and Perkins RA (2014) Review of educational research methods in desktop virtual world envi-
ronments: Framing the past to provide future direction. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 7(1): 1–27.
Berman RA (2007) Developing linguistic knowledge and language use across adolescence. In: Hoff E and
Shatz M (eds) Blackwell handbook of language development. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
347–367. DOI: 10.1002/9780470757833.ch17
Berns A, Isla-Montes JL, Palomo-Duarte M, et al. (2016) Motivation, students’ needs and learning outcomes: a
hybrid game-based app for enhanced language learning. SpringerPlus 5(1): 1–23. DOI: 10.1186/s40064-
016-2971-1.
Berns A, Mota JM, Ruiz-Rube I, et al. (2018) Exploring the potential of a 360° video application for foreign
language learning. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on technological ecosystems for
enhancing multiculturality.
Berti M (2020) ImmerseMe. CALICO Journal 37(3): 321–330. DOI: 10.1558/cj.39714
* Boellstorff T (2015) Three real features for virtual worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 8(2): 1–5.
Blake RJ (2011) Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 19–35.
DOI: 10.1017/S026719051100002X
Blyth C (2018) Immersive technologies and language learning. Foreign Language Annals 51: 225–232. DOI:
10.1111/flan.12327
Buendgens-Kosten J (2020) The monolingual problem of computer-assisted language learning. ReCALL 32(3):
307–322. DOI: 10.1017/S095834402000004X
Cai MY, Wang JY, Chen GD, et al. (2020). Digital reality theater with the mechanisms of real-time spoken language
evaluation and interactive switching of scenario & virtual costumes: effects on motivation and learning
performance. In: 2020 IEEE 20th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT), Tartu,
Estonia, 6–9 July 2020, New Jersey: IEEE, 295–299. DOI: 10.1109/ICALT49669.2020.00096
Chambers A and Bax S (2006) Making CALL work: towards normalisation. System 34(4): 465–479. DOI: 10.
1016/j.system.2006.08.001
Chang B, Lee S, Si M, et al. (2012) Foreign language learning in immersive virtual environments. The
engineering reality of virtual reality 2012. In: Proceedings of the SPIE 8289, Burlingame, CA, 8 February
2012, 2–9. DOI: 10.1117/12909835
Chen YL (2016) The effects of virtual reality learning environment on student cognitive and linguistic de-
velopment. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 25: 637–646. DOI: 10.1007/s40299-016-0293-2
* Chen JCC (2020) The effects of pre-task planning on EFL learners’ oral performance in a 3D multi-user
virtual environment. ReCALL 32(3): 1–18. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344020000026
* Chen JC, Huang Y, Lin KY, et al. (2020a) Developing a hands-on activity using virtual reality to help students
learn by doing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 36: 46–60. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12389
Bahari 183
* Chen YL and Hsu CC (2020) Self-regulated mobile game-based English learning in a virtual reality en-
vironment. Computers & Education 154: 103910. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103910
Chen MP, Wang LC, Zou D, et al. (2020b) Effects of captions and English proficiency on learning effec-
tiveness, motivation and attitude in augmented-reality enhanced theme-based contextualized EFL
learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning 34(4): 51–68. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1704787
* Chen Y, Smith TJ, York CS, et al. (2020c) Google earth virtual reality and expository writing for young
English learners from a funds of knowledge perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 33 1–25.
DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1544151
* Chien SY, Hwang GJ and Siu-Yung Jong M (2019) Effects of peer assessment within the context of spherical
video-based virtual reality on EFL students’ English-Speaking performance and learning perceptions.
Computers & Education. 146: 103751. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103751
Cho Y (2018) How Spatial Presence In VR Affects Memory Retention And Motivation on Second Language
Learning: A Comparison of Desktop And Immersive VR-Based Learning (Unpublished Master’s Dis-
sertation). Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University.
Chollet M, Wortwein T, Morency LP, et al. (2015) Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference
on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. Osaka, Japan, 7–11 September 2015, pp. 1143–1154. DOI: 10.
1145/2750858.2806060
Cochrane T (2016) Mobile VR in education: from the fringe to the mainstream. International Journal of Mobile
and Blended Learning (IJMBL) 8(4): 44–60. DOI: 10.4018/IJMBL.2016100104
Dalim C, Samihah C, Sunar MS, et al. (2020) Using augmented reality with speech input for non-native
children’s language learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 134: 44–64. DOI: 10.
1016/j.ijhcs.2019.10.002
* Dolgunsöz E, Yıldırım G and Yıldırım S (2018) The effect of virtual reality on EFL writing performance.
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 14(1): 278–292.
Dunleavy M and Dede C (2014) Augmented reality teaching and learning. In: Spector JM, Merrill MD, Elen J
and Bishop MJ (eds) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York:
Springer, 735–745.
Ebert D, Gupta S and Makedon F (2016) Ogma: a virtual reality language acquisition system. In: Proceedings
of the 9th ACM international conference on pervasive technologies related to assistive environments.
Corfu, Island, 29 June 2016, 6(66): 1–5. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-21817-1_12
Eisenlauer V (2020) Digital literacies in virtual reality learning contexts. In: Jung T, tom Dieck M and
Rauschnabel P (eds) Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality. Progress in IS. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.
1007/978-3-030-37869-1_22
Emonts M, Row R, Johnson WL, et al. (2012) Integration of Social Simulations into a Task-Based Blended
Training Curriculum. Melbourne, Australia: Land warfare conference.
* Erlandson BE, Nelson BC and Wilhelmina CS (2010) Collaboration modality, cognitive load, and science
inquiry learning in virtual inquiry environments. Educational Technology Research and Development
58(6): 693–710.
Frazier E, Bonner E and Lege R (2018) A brief investigation into the potential for virtual reality: a tool for 2nd
language learning distance education in Japan. The language and Media Learning Research Center
Annual Report 2: 211–216.
Gadelha R (2018) Revolutionizing education: the promise of virtual reality. Childhood Education 94(1):
40–43. DOI: 10.1080/00094056.2018.1420362
Garcia S, Laesker D, Caprio D, et al. (2019) An immersive virtual reality experience for learning Spanish. In:
Zaphiris P and Ioannou A (eds) Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Ubiquitous and Virtual
Environments for Learning and Collaboration. HCII 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham:
Springer, Vol. 11591.
Garg AX, Hackman D and Tonelli M (2008) Systematic review and meta-analysis: when one study is just not
enough. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 3: 253–260. DOI: 10.2215/CJN.
01430307
* Garrido-Iñigo P and Rodrı́guez-Moreno F (2015) The reality of virtual worlds: pros and cons of their
application to foreign language teaching. Interactive Learning Environments 23(4): 453–470. DOI: 10.
1080/10494820.2013.788034
Geng J, Luk ET and Jong MS (2017) Teachers’ concerns about adopting interactive spherical video-based
virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on computers in education. New
Zealand, 4–8 December 2017. New Zealand: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Gillespie J (2020) CALL research: where are we now?. ReCALL 32(2): 127–144. DOI: 10.1017/
S0958344020000051
Gregory S, Lee MJW, Dalgarno B and Tynan B (eds) (2016) Learning in virtual worlds: Research and applications
(Issues in distance education). Edmonton: AU Press, 292. DOI: 10.15215/aupress/9781771991339.01
* Hartwick P (2018) Investigating research approaches: classroom-based interaction studies in physical and
virtual contexts. ReCALL 30(2): 161–176. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344017000386
* Hassani K, Nahvi A and Ahmadi A (2013) Design and implementation of an intelligent virtual environment
for improving speaking and listening skills. Interactive Learning Environments 24(1): 252–271. DOI: 10.
1080/10494820.2013.846265
Hew KF and Cheung WS (2010) Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher
education settings: a review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology 41(1): 33–55.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x
Holden CL and Sykes JM (2011) Leveraging mobile games for place-based language learning. International
Journal of Game-Based Learning 1(2): 1–18. DOI: 10.4018/ijgbl.2011040101
* Hsiao IYT, Lan YJ, Kao CL, et al. (2017) Visualization analytics for second language vocabulary learning in
virtual worlds. Educational Technology & Society 20(2): 161–175.
Hsu TC (2017) Learning English with augmented reality: do learning styles matter? Computers & Education
106: 137–149. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.007
* Huang CL, Luo YF, Yang SC, et al. (2020a) Influence of Students’ learning style, sense of presence, and
cognitive load on learning outcomes in an immersive virtual reality learning environment. Journal of
Educational Computing Research 58(3): 596–615. DOI: 10.1177/0735633119867422
* Huang HL, Hwang GJ and Chang CY (2020b) Learning to be a writer: a spherical video-based virtual reality
approach to supporting descriptive article writing in high school Chinese courses. British Journal of
Educational Technology 51: 1386–1405. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12893
Huang X, He J and Wang H (2020c) A case study: students’ perception of a collaborative game-based virtual
learning environment. In: 2020 6th international conference of the immersive learning research network
(iLRN). San Luis Obispo, CA, 21–25 June 2020, New Jersey, USA: IEEE, 46–53. DOI: 10.23919/
iLRN47897.2020.9155159
* Huang H, Liaw S and Lai C (2016) Exploring learner acceptance of the use of virtual reality in medical
education. Interact. Learn. Environ 24(1): 3–19. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2013.817436
* Hu-Au E and Lee JJ (2017) Virtual reality in education: a tool for learning in the experience age. International
Journal of Innovation in Education 4(4): 215–226.
* Hung YH, Chen CH and Huang SW (2017) Applying augmented reality to enhance learning: a study of different
teaching materials. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 33: 252–266. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12173
* Jain P, Bhavsar R, Shaik K, et al. (2020) Virtual reality: an aid as cognitive learning environment—a case
study of Hindi language. Virtual Reality 24: 771–781. DOI: 10.1007/s10055-020-00426-w
Jankowski J, Samp K, Irzynska I, et al. (2010) Integrating text with video and 3D graphics: the effects of text
drawing styles on text readability. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
Bahari 185
human factors in computing systems. 10–15 April 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA. DOI: 10.1145/1753326.
1753524.
Jensen L and Konradsen F (2018) A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and
training. Education and Information Technologies 23(4): 1515–1529. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0
Junior RA and Bodzin A (2020) Work-in-progress—immersive virtual reality design considerations to promote
learning for English language learners. In: 2020 6th international conference of the immersive learning
research network (iLRN). San Luis Obispo, CA, 21–25 June 2020, New Jersey, USA: IEEE, 251–254.
DOI: 10.23919/iLRN47897.2020.9155141
Kashada A, Li H and Koshadah O (2018) Analysis approach to identify factors influencing digital learning
technology adoption and utilization in developing countries. International Journal Of Emerging Tech-
nologies In Learning (IJET) 13(02): 48–59. DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7399
Kim SH, Lee J and Thomas MK (2012) Between purpose and method: a review of educational research on 3D
virtual worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 5(1): 1–18.
Kizilkaya L, Vince D and Holmes W (2019) Design prompts for virtual reality in education. In: Isotani S, Millán E,
Ogan A, Hastings P, McLaren B and Luckin R (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2019Lecture
Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer, Vol. 11626. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-23207-8_25
Kolb DA (2015) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. 2nd Edition..
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Korkalainen T, Pääkylä J, Liukkonen TN, et al. (2015) Virtual reality situational language trainer for second
language: design & evaluation. In: GAMEON’2015. 16th international conference on intelligent games
and simulation.
* Lamb RL, Etopio E, Hand B, et al. (2019) Virtual reality simulation: effects on academic performance within
two domains of writing in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology 28: 371–381. DOI: 10.
1007/s10956-019-09774-y
* Lan YJ (2020) Immersion, interaction and experience-oriented learning: bringing virtual reality into FL
learning. Language Learning & Technology 24(1): 1–5. Available at: http://hdl/handle.net/10125/44704
* Lan YJ (2015) Contextual EFL learning in a 3D virtual environment. Language Learning & Technology
19(2): 16–31.
* Lan Y, Fang W, Hsiao IYT, et al. (2018a) Real body versus 3D avatar: the effects of different embodied
learning types on EFL listening comprehension. Education Tech Research Dev 66: 709–731. DOI: 10.
1007/s11423-018-9569-y
* Lan YJ, Hsiao IY and Shih MF (2018b) Effective learning design of game-based 3D virtual language learning
environments for special education students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 21: 213–327.
* Lau KW and Lee PL (2015) The use of virtual reality for creating unusual environmental stimulation to
motivate students to explore creative ideas. Interactive Learning Environments 23(1): 3–18. DOI: 10.
1080/10494820.2012.745426
Lawrence G and Ahmed F (2020) Avatar teaching and learning: examining language teaching and learning
practices in virtual reality environments. In: Zou B and Thomas M (eds) Recent Developments in
Technology-Enhanced and Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 340–360.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1282-1.ch015
Lech IB and Harris LN (2019) Language learning in the virtual wild. In: Carrió-Pastor M (ed) Teaching
Language and Teaching Literature in Virtual Environments. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-
13-1358-5_3
* Lee SM and Park M (2019) Reconceptualization of the context in language learning with a location-based AR
app. Computer Assisted Language Learning 32(4): 67–82. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1602545
Levy M and Stockwell G (2006) CALL Dimensions: Issues and Options in Computer-Assisted Language
Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Li S, Chen Y, Whittinghill DM, et al. (2014) A pilot study exploring augmented reality to increase motivation of
Chinese college students learning English. In: ASEE annual conference. Indianapolis, IN, 15–18 June
2014, Available at: https://peer.asee.org/19977
* Li C, Ip HHS, Wong YM, et al. (2020) An empirical study on using virtual reality for enhancing the youth’s
intercultural sensitivity in Hong Kong. Journal of Computer Assist Learning 1: 11. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.
12432
* Liang M (2019) Beyond elocution: multimodal narrative discourse analysis of L2 storytelling. ReCALL
31(1): 56–74. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344018000095
* Lin T and Lan Y (2015) Language learning in virtual reality environments: past, present, and future. Journal
of Educational Technology & Society 18(4): 486–497.
* Liu PHE and Tsai MK (2013) Using augmented-reality-based mobile learning material in EFL English
composition: an exploratory case study. British Journal of Educational Technology 44(1): E1–E4. DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01302.x
Lu HM, Lou SJ, Papa C, et al. (2011) Study on influence of adventure game on English reading confidence,
motive and self-efficacy. In: International conference on technologies for e-learning and digital enter-
tainment, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 430–434. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-23456-9_77.
Macedonia M and Knosche TR (2011) Body in mind: how gestures empower foreign language learning. Mind,
Brain, and Education 5(4): 196–211. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01129.x
* MacWhinney B (2017) A shared platform for studying second language acquisition. Language Learning
67(S1): 254–275. DOI: 10.1111/lang.12220
* Makransky G, Terkildsen TS and Mayer RE (2019) Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab
simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning & Instruction 60: 225–236. DOI: 10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2017.12.007
* Melchor-Couto S (2018) Virtual world anonymity and foreign language oral interaction. ReCALL 30(2):
232–249. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344017000398
Minocha S, Tudor AD and Tilling S (2017) Affordances of mobile virtual reality and their role in learning
and teaching. In: Proceedings of British HCI 2017–digital make believe. Sunderland, UK: BCS
Learning and Development Ltd.
Pack A, Barrett A, Liang HN, et al. (2020) University EAP students’ perceptions of using a prototype virtual
reality learning environment to learn writing structure. International Journal of Computer-Assisted
Language Learning and Teaching. 10(1): 27–46. DOI: 10.4018/IJCALLT.2020010103.
* Park M (2018) Innovative assessment of aviation English in a virtual world: windows into cognitive and
metacognitive strategies. ReCALL 30(2): 196–213. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344017000362
Parmaxi A (2020) Virtual reality in language learning: a systematic review and implications for research and
practice. Interactive Learning Environments 28(5): 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1765392
* Peeters D (2020) Bilingual switching between languages and listeners: insights from immersive virtual
reality. Cognition 195: 104107. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104107
* Peeters W and Pretorius M (2020) Facebook or fail-book: exploring “community” in a virtual community of
practice. ReCALL 32: 1–16. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344020000099
Peixoto B, Pinto D, Krassmann A, et al. (2019) Using virtual reality tools for teaching foreign languages. In:
New knowledge in information systems and technologies. WorldCIST’19 2019 advances in intelligent
systems and computing (eds Rocha Á, Adeli H, Reis L, et al.), Cham: Springer, Vol 932. DOI: 10.1007/
978-3-030-16187-3_56
Pinto D, Peixoto B, Krassmann A, et al. (2019) Virtual reality in education: learning a foreign language. In:
New Knowledge in Information Systems and Technologies. WorldCIST’19 2019Advances in Intelligent
Systems and Computing (eds Rocha Á, Adeli H, Reis L, et al.), Cham: Springer, Vol 932. DOI: 10.1007/
978-3-030-16187-3_57
Bahari 187
Psotka J (1995) Immersive training systems: virtual reality and education and training. Instructional Science
23(5): 405–431. DOI: 10.1007/BF00896880
* Rau PLP, Zheng J, Guo Z, et al. (2018) Speed reading on virtual reality and augmented reality. Computers &
Education 125: 240–245. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.016
Reinders H (2018) Autonomy and technology. In: Liontas L (ed) The TESOL encyclopedia of English language
teaching. New York, NY: Wiley.
* Rienties B, Lewis T, O’Dowd R, et al. (2020) The impact of virtual exchange on TPACK and foreign
language competence: reviewing a large-scale implementation across 23 virtual exchanges. Computer
Assisted Language Learning 28(5): 15–28. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1737546
Scavarelli A, Arya A and Teather RJ (2021) Virtual reality and augmented reality in social learning spaces: a
literature review. Virtual Reality 25(1): 257–277. DOI: 10.1007/s10055-020-00444-8
Scrivner O, Madewell J, Buckley C, et al. (2019) Best practices in the use of augmented and virtual reality
technologies for SLA: design, implementation, and feedback. In: Carrió-Pastor M (ed) Teaching Lan-
guage and Teaching Literature in Virtual Environments. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-
1358-5_4
* Shapiro HB, Lee CH, Roth NEW, et al. (2017) Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC)
student experience: an examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Computers & Education 110:
35–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003
* Shin DH (2017) The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and
affective affordances in virtual reality. Telematics and Informatics 34: 1826–1836. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.
2017.05.013.
* Smith B and Lafford BA (2009) The evaluation of scholarly activity in computer-assisted language learning.
The Modern Language Journal 93: 868–883. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00978.x.
Stockwell G and Reinders H (2019) Technology, motivation and autonomy, and teacher psychology in
language learning: exploring the myths and possibilities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 39: 40–51.
DOI: 10.1017/S0267190519000084
Su YC (2006) EFL teachers’ perceptions of English language policy at the elementary level in Taiwan.
Educational Studies 32(3): 265–283. DOI: 10.1080/03055690600631218
Sun FR, Pan LF, Wan RG, et al. (2018) Detecting the effect of student engagement in an SVVR school-based
course on higher level competence development in elementary schools by SEM. Interactive Learning
Environments 29(1): 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/10494.820.2018.1558258
Sun C, Yao Y, Wang R, et al (2020) A study on the influence of scene reality of vr environment on english
learners’ learning engagement and learning effectiveness. In: 2020 IEEE 2nd international conference on
computer science and educational informatization (CSEI), Xinxiang, China, 12–14 June 2020, 16(2),
181–185. DOI: 10.1109/CSEI50228.2020.9142520
Sung HY, Hwang GJ, Lin CJ, et al. (2017) Experiencing the analects of confucius: an experiential game-based
learning approach to promoting students’ motivation and conception of learning. Computers & Education
110: 143–153. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.014
* Sydorenko T, Hellermann J, Thorne SL, et al. (2019) Mobile augmented reality and language-related
episodes. TESOL Quarterly 53: 712–740. DOI: 10.1002/tesq.507
* Tai TY, Chen HJC and Todd G (2020) The impact of a virtual reality app on adolescent EFL learners’
vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning 33(3): 45–64. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.
2020.1752735
Tricart C (2018) Virtual Reality Filmmaking: Techniques & Best Practices for VR Filmmakers. New York:
Routledge.
* Tseng WT, Liou HJ and Chu HC (2020) Vocabulary learning in virtual environments: learner autonomy and
collaboration. System 88: 102190. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2019.102190
* Van Ginkel S, Gulikers J, Biemans H, et al. (2019) Fostering oral presentation competence through a virtual
reality-based task for delivering feedback. Computers & Education 134: 78–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.
2019.02.006
Vazquez C, Xia L, Aikawa T, et al. (2018) Words in motion: kinesthetic language learning in virtual reality. In:
Presented at the 2018 IEEE 18th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT),
Mumbai, India, 9–13 July 2018, Vol 2161–377X. DOI: 10.1109/icalt.2018.00069.
Vieira Monteiro AM and Pfeiffer T (2020) Virtual reality in second language acquisition research: a case on
Amazon Sumerian. In: International conference on educational technologies 2020 (ICEduTech 2020),
125–128.
* Wang Y (2017) Exploring the effectiveness of integrating augmented reality-based materials to support
writing activities. Computers and Education 113(9): 162–176. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.013
Wang CX, Calandra B, Hibbard ST, et al. (2012) Learning effects of an experimental EFL program in second
life. Education Tech Research Dev 60: 943–961. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-012-9259-0
* Wang CP, Lan YJ, Tseng WT, et al. (2019) On the effects of 3D virtual worlds in language learning – a meta-
analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning 33(8), 891–915. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1598444
Wang R, Newton S and Lowe R (2015) Experiential learning styles in the age of a virtual surrogate. Int. J. Arch.
Res. ArchNet-IJAR 9: 93–110. DOI: 10.26687/archnet-ijar.v9i3.715
* Wang YF, Petrina S and Feng F (2017) VILLAGE—virtual immersive language learning and gaming
environment: immersion and presence. British Journal of Educational Technology 48(2): 431–450. DOI:
10.1111/bjet.12388
Wei C, Yu D and Dingier T (2020) Reading on 3D Surfaces in virtual environments. In: 2020 IEEE conference
on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR), Atlanta, GA, USA, 22–26 March 2020, Lisbon, Portugal.
721–728. DOI: 10.1109/VR46266.2020.00095
* Wigham C, Panichi L, Nocchi S, et al. (2018) Interactions for language learning in and around virtual worlds.
ReCALL 30(2): 153–160. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344018000022
Willems RM and Casasanto D (2011) Flexibility in embodied language understanding. Frontiers in Psychology
2: 116. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00116
Wozniak K (2020) Personalized learning for adults: an emerging andragogy. In: Yu S, Ally M and Tsinakos A
(eds) Emerging Technologies and Pedagogies in the Curriculum. Bridging Human and Machine: Future
Education with Intelligence. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-0618-5_11
* Xie Y, Chen Y and Ryder LH (2019) Effects of using mobile-based virtual reality on Chinese L2 students’ oral
proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learning 34(3): 56–73. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1604551
* Yamazaki K (2018) Computer-assisted learning of communication (CALC): a case study of Japanese learning
in a 3D virtual world. ReCALL 30(2): 214–231. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344017000350
* Yeh Y and Lan Y (2018) Fostering student autonomy in English learning through creations in a 3D virtual
world. Education Tech Research Dev 66: 693–708. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-017-9566-6
* Yeh HC, Tseng SS and Heng L (2020) Enhancing EFL students’ intracultural learning through virtual reality.
Interactive Learning Environments 28(4): 44–63. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1734625
* York J, Shibata K, Tokutake H, et al. (2020).Effect of SCMC on foreign language anxiety and learning
experience: a comparison of voice, video, and VR-based oral interaction. ReCALL 33: 1–22. DOI: 10.
1017/S0958344020000154
Zhang D, Wang M and Wu JG (2020) Design and implementation of augmented reality for English language
education. In: Geroimenko V (ed) Augmented Reality in Education. Cham: Springer Series on Cultural
ComputingSpringer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-42156-4_12

2022-Affordances and Challenges of Teaching Language Skills by Virtual Reality - A Systematic Review (2010-2020)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022-Affordances and Challenges of Teaching Language Skills by Virtual Reality - A Systematic Review (2010-2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

E-Learning and Digital Media

Purpose of this study

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the screening and selection procedure.

Results to speaking development by VR

Table 1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Criteria Inclusion Exclusion

Date 2010–2020 Prior to 2010 and after 2020

Language Reported issues and Reported affordances and

Peixoto Quasi- 7 Listening Teachers’ responsibility Positive perceptions of L2

Figure 3. Comparative hierarchy of affordances and challenges of using VR to teach L2 speaking.

Results to reading development by VR

Enhanced learner engagement (13%). Describing VR environment as an engaging way of instruction,

Language Reported issues and Reported affordances and

Chen Quasi- 9 Oral skills Improving learners’ Developing linguistic

Quick diagnostic/achievement assessment (10%). Exploring the affordances of immersive VR en-

Language Reported issues and Reported affordances

Results to writing development by VR

Declaration of conﬂicting interests

You might also like