Language Learning in Virtual Reality Environments: Past, Present, and Future

Author(s): Tsun-Ju Lin and Yu-Ju Lan

Source: Journal of Educational Technology & Society , October 2015, Vol. 18, No. 4
(October 2015), pp. 486-497
Published by: International Forum of Educational Technology & Society

Stable URL: [Link]

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
[Link]
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
[Link]

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Educational
Technology & Society

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
Lin, T. J., & Lan, Y. J. (2015). Language Learning in Virtual Reality Environments: Past, Present, and Future. Educational
Technology & Society, 18 (4), 486–497.

Language Learning in Virtual Reality Environments: Past, Present, and Future

Tsun-Ju Lin1 and Yu-Ju Lan2*
1
Department of Applied Chinese, Kainan University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan // 2Department of Applied Chinese
Language and Culture, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan // tsunjulin@[Link] //
yujulan@[Link]
*
Corresponding author

(Submitted November 3, 2014; Revised May 4, 2015; Accepted May 7, 2015)

ABSTRACT
This study investigated the research trends in language learning in a virtual reality environment by conducting a
content analysis of findings published in the literature from 2004 to 2013 in four top ranked computer-assisted
language learning journals: Language Learning & Technology, CALICO Journal, Computer Assisted Language
Learning, and ReCALL. Data from 29 articles were cross-analyzed in terms of research topics, technologies
used, language learning settings, sample groups, and methodological approaches. It was found that the three
most popular research topics for learners were interactive communication; behaviors, affections, and beliefs; and
task-based instruction. However, the analysis results highlight the need for the inclusion of the impact of
teacher. The data also revealed that more studies are utilizing triangulation of measurement processes to enable
in-depth analysis. A trend of gathering data through informal learning procedures was also observed. This article
concludes by highlighting particular fields related to VR in which further research is urgently needed.

Keywords
Virtual reality, MMOGs, Virtual worlds, Content analysis

Introduction
The recent rapid advances in and popularity of wireless communication and multimedia environments have resulted
in language learning in a virtual reality (VR) environment [a so-called virtual learning environment (VLE)] receiving
considerable attention in the past few years. In the early stage, VR generally involved only small representations of
content area or domains designed to “bridge the gap between reality and abstract knowledge by the discovery
method” (Lee, 1999, p. 72). In order to create such environments, the systems were commonly theme-based and
comprised a full integration of artificial intelligence and a wide variety of social communication tools. Because of its
features, VR was quickly introduced to promote authentic and immersive learning environments.

VR tools nowadays are a far cry from early two-dimensional (2D) text-based online VR environments, such as
multiuser domains (MUDs) and MUD, object oriented (MOO), to which multiple users can be connected at the same
time. Current VLEs have evolved to be more sophisticated and interactive with a high degree of visual appeal,
allowing a wide range of interlocutors to communicate, cooperate, and compete through customized three-
dimensional (3D) virtual spaces and avatars. Currently there are several VR tools in the market; Sykes et al. (2008)
categorized VR based on its original design purposes into three types: open social virtualities, massively multiplayer
online games (MMOGs), and synthetic immersive environments (SIEs). Open social virtualities, such as Second Life
(SL), OpenSimulator, and Active Worlds (AW), allow the users to immerse themselves in a wide variety of social
contexts, participating in individual and group activities, and letting them create and trade virtual properties and
services with one another. MMOGs, such as World of Warcraft (WoW), emphasize more role-playing functions, and
involve hundreds or even thousands of players cooperating and competing with each other simultaneously based on
their selected race, class, or profession. However, Sykes et al. (2008) considered that the above two types of VR were
originally developed for commercial and business use. In contrast, an SIE emphasizes its educational objectives by
carefully incorporating pedagogy into the immersive spaces. Regardless of the original purposes for which VLEs
were designed, researchers in the computer-assisted language learning (CALL) field have tried to employ
pedagogical principles and practices that are innovative and theoretically grounded to understand the pedagogical
values of VLEs in language learning.

Given the above background on how VR emerged and has been categorized, it is useful to define VR so as to reflect
its development as a state-of-the-art technology. Based on a thorough review of the definitions proposed by other

ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). This article of the Journal of Educational Technology & Society is available under Creative Commons CC-BY-ND-NC
486
3.0 license ([Link] For further queries, please contact Journal Editors at ets-editors@[Link].

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
researchers, Smart et al. (2007) offered the following core definition of VR: a system that aims to bring simulated
real-life experiences, providing topography, movement, and physics that offer the illusion of being there.

Review of VR and simulation research

Several journal articles conducting meta-analysis have attempted to identify the characteristics and challenges of VR
in technology-enhanced learning research. Lee (1999) analyzed 19 studies to determine the effectiveness of
computer-simulated environments by investigating the relationship between 2 forms (i.e., pure and hybrid) and 2
modes of instructions (i.e., presentation and practice). That study revealed that within either the presentation or
practice mode, hybrid simulation (which has expository instructional features) is much more effective than pure
simulation (which does not integrate any specific directions and explanations). Schwienhorst (2002) examined the
state of VR in second-language (L2) acquisition with the aim of identifying the common problems encountered and
the role of VR in CALL research. Researchers in the 1990s seemed to agree that VR can promote constructivist
activities and learner engagement (i.e., student involvement, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation). Additionally, VR
can lead to “intrinsic motivation, more intercultural awareness, and a reduction of the affective filter” (Schwienhorst,
2002, p. 230). However, Schwienhorst (2002) claimed that VR research during that period was inadequate to allow
any conclusive claims to be made.

Subsequent studies seemed to switch the focus to the effects of instruction involving computer simulations versus
traditional instruction methods. Vogel et al. (2006) reviewed 32 studies and found that across all variables (e.g., age
and gender) and situations (e.g., types of activities and the degree of image realism in the computer programs), the
use of interactive simulations and games provided superior cognitive outcomes and more positive attitudes toward
learning than did traditional teaching methods. Similar to previous studies, they also found that interactive
simulations promoted self-directed learning and provided fail-safe learning environments. The authors also
demonstrated that interactive simulations and games increase learners’ knowledge more than traditional teaching
methods across all ages. Liao and Chen (2007) examined 29 studies performed in Taiwan and also found that
instruction involving computer simulations had more positive effects on learning by students than did traditional
instruction methods. Their study further suggested that 3D virtual presentation may be more effective than 2D for
students’ learning due to the former providing more accurately simulated and authentic learning environments.

It should be noted that among the four above-mentioned studies, only Schwienhorst (2002) emphasized the use of
virtual worlds for language learning. Moreover, although Schwienhorst (2002) claimed to have conducted a meta-
analysis, the article was actually more of a historical overview of relevant research and aimed to shed light on the use
of VR in L2 acquisition. This is understandable given that in 2002 there were too few language studies involving VR
to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted (aimed at establishing statistical significance with studies on a particular
topic that have produced conflicting results); moreover, the number of examined studies was not mentioned in his
article.

The subsequent decade saw a focus on the research trends in technology-based learning. Hsu et al. (2012) conducted
a content analysis on five SSCI journals published from 2000 to 2009, with the results revealing that the proportion
of articles on VLEs, digital games, and learning enhanced through the use of “intelligent” toys increased significantly
between 2000–2004 and 2005–2009, from 0.81% to 3.82%. However, VR is still reported to be one of the least
published research topics in the technology-based learning field. Similar to Hsu et al. (2012), Wang and Vásquez
(2012) also reported VR as being less frequently explored technologies compared to other Web 2.0 tools in L2
acquisition.

The above-described results indicate that studies that analyze the appropriateness, application, and practices of VR,
and its influence on language education are urgently needed. This situation prompted the present study to
systematically review and synthesize the literature on language learning in VR from 2004 to 2013 in order to
determine whether this research field has produced any conclusive data during the past 10 years. Reviewing the
trends in VR may help to identify research interests and gaps, and further provide reference data for future research
directions. To identify the overall research trends, this study categorized previous studies into five categories:
research topics, technologies used, language learning settings, sample groups, and methodological approaches. The
following four research questions (RQs) were specifically addressed by this study:
RQ1. What percentage of the articles published in the selected journals were related to VR?

487

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
RQ2. What topics related to language learning in VR were investigated in these journals from 2004 to 2013?
RQ3. What technologies have been used in VR studies?
RQ4. What methodologies were applied in VR studies from 2004 to 2013? How did the methodologies change from
2004 to 2013?

Method
The studies to be included in the content analysis were identified by performing computer searches of journal
databases. Since it would have been difficult to include all relevant journals in the analysis, the following four top
CALL-specific and education technology-related journals were selected: Language Learning & Technology (LLT),
CALICO Journal, CALL, and ReCALL. Smith and Lafford (2009) evaluated these as the four highest quality English-
language journals in the field of CALL. The examined journals were evaluated by 35 tenured CALL experts using a
list of criteria, including the quality of the articles, significance of contribution to the field, review process, and
originality. It was expected that a thorough analysis of high-quality articles in these 4 journals by the 35 experts
would identify the most influential works in the CALL field.

In total, 811 articles appeared in the 4 journals from 2004 to 2013; this excluded columns, commentaries,
book/media reviews, review studies, editorial materials, and letters. A content analysis was applied to these articles
using the following keywords: simulation, VR, VLEs, social virtual worlds, MOOs, MUDs, and MMOGs. In a few
cases where the keywords were insufficient, the researchers analyzed abstracts and full articles. This process yielded
29 empirical studies for inclusion in the analysis in this study. Based on the methodology of content analysis,
descriptive statistics was utilized to classify the previously mentioned five categories, namely research topics,
technologies used, language learning settings, research sample groups, and methodological approaches.

Research topics

Based on the methodology of inductive content analysis, the research topics related to L2 acquisition in CALL were
first classified into four categories: learner differences, learning task, impact of the teacher, and environment. For
each category, subcategories were classified. During the data analysis process, these categories and subcategories
were refined continuingly. The validity of these categories and subcategories was confirmed after all the articles were
reviewed, as follows:
• Learner differences: Articles related to this research topic explore learner’s linguistic and sociolinguistic
competencies. Some articles also discussed the concept of metalinguistic awareness in terms of how a learner
integrates form, meaning, and function to keep oneself using the normal target language. This category was
further divided into four subcategories: interactive communication, motivation, cultural awareness and
intelligence, and language proficiency.
• Learning task: This category includes articles that discuss or examine different types of instructional strategies
and approaches used in VR. This category was further divided into three categories: task-based instruction
(TBI), collaborative learning, and problem-solving.
• Impact of the teacher: This category includes studies that outline teachers’ teaching experiences and perceptions
in MUVEs. The two subcategories comprise task design, and perception and awareness.
• Environment: Articles that emphasize investigating the affordance of a VR environment were classified into this
category.

Technologies used, language learning settings, research sample groups, and methodological approaches

First of all, the three types of VR proposed by Sykes et al. (2008) were extended to the following subcategories of
research technologies used in this review: open social virtualities, MMOGs, SIEs, “others,” and “not specified.”
Second, after conducting several rounds of discussions, the following six subcategories were identified for the
language learning settings: first language (L1) learning, L2 learning, foreign language (FL) learning, language
exchange, “others,” and “not specified.” Third, discussions among researchers reached the following consensus for
the eight categories for the research sample groups: elementary school, junior/senior high school, higher education,
teachers, adults, special needs, “others,” and “not specified.” It should be noted that the “adults” sample group
488

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
included all adult participants without specifying whether they were teachers or participants in higher education.
Finally, the same researchers discussed the usage of the subcategories for the methodological approaches, which
produced the following finalized subcategories: quantitative, qualitative, and a combination of quantitative and
qualitative approach (quan.+qual.). The data collection for each article is described later.

Data coding and analysis

This study used the articles relevant to VR published in the four selected journals from 2004 to 2013 to investigate
the research trends. Content analysis was utilized to classify the aforementioned categories.

A one-level coding process was used to categorize technologies used, language learning settings, sample groups, and
research designs. Articles with only one major subcategory were coded to the designed subcategory, while those with
more than one major subcategory or with subcategories other than the aforementioned ones were accounted as
“others.”

As mentioned above, many of the analyzed articles addressed more than one research topic. Thus, the research topic
was coded into two levels, with the primary and matched subcategories coded as the first and second research topics,
respectively. Any matching subcategories after the second research topic were excluded, and the field of the second
research topic was coded “none” for articles with only one research topic.

The coding process was undertaken manually by the researchers. To obtain more reliable outcomes from coding,
three researchers (two professors and one research assistant) in educational technology helped to code these studies
based on the aforementioned categories. These researchers each had from 5 to 12 years of language teaching
experience, knew more than one language, and had taught online courses in more than two different countries
previously. All the articles followed the same coding process. The results were compared using Pearson correlation
coefficient measures of reliability, which yielded r = 0.84. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion. After the
initial coding process, a descriptive analysis was conducted to report the data.

Results
Percentage of articles related to VR

The analysis by year and journal (see Table 1) revealed that only 3.6% of the articles published in the four journals
from 2004 to 2013 were related to the field of VR: 0.8% in LLT, 1.9% in CALICO Journal, 4.7% in CALL, and 6.3%
in ReCALL. The year with the highest percentage of related articles was 2012 (10.3%), while no related articles were
published in 2004 and 2007. Figure 1 illustrates the increasing trend of articles related to VR in the four journals
from 2004 to 2013.

Table 1. Percentage of VR studies in each journal during the analyzed period

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
LLT 0/13 (0) 0/14 (0) 0/12 (0) 0/13 (0) 0/12 (0) 0/12 (0) 0/10 (0) 1/12 (8.3) 0/11 (0) 0/19 (0) 1/128 (0.8)
CALICO 0/21 (0) 2/24 (0) 1/24 (4.1) 0/22 (0) 0/29 (0) 2/34 (0.6) 0/31 (0) 0/31 (0) 0/26 (0) 0/20 (0) 5/262 (1.9)
CALL 0/21 (0) 1/22 (4.5) 1/19 (5.2) 0/25 (0) 1/27 (3.7) 2/23 (8.7) 0/24 (0) 2/25 (8) 2/23 (8.7) 2/24 (8.3) 11/233 (4.7)
ReCALL 0/34 (0) 0/16 (0) 0/12 (0) 0/18 (0) 0/20 (0) 1/18 (5.6) 1/20 (5) 0/13 (0) 6/17 (35.2) 4/20 (20) 12/188 (6.3)
Total 0/89 (0) 3/76 (3.9) 2/67 (3) 0/78 (0) 1/88 (1.1) 5/87 (5.7) 1/85 (1.2) 3/81 (3.7) 8/77 (10.3) 6/83 (7.2) 29/811 (3.6)

Figure 1. Publication trends from 2004 to 2013

489

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
Research topic analysis

As presented in Table 2, the most common research topic was learner differences (n = 27), followed by learning task
(n = 9). On the other hand, the most common research topic subcategory was interactive communication (n = 12),
followed by learner behaviors, affections, and beliefs (n = 9) and TBI (n = 6). The least common research topic
subcategory was collaborative learning (n = 1).

Table 2. Thematic foci

Category Subcategory Frequency
A. Learner differences A1. Interactive communication 12
A2. Behaviors, affections, and beliefs 9
A3. Cultural awareness and intelligence 3
A4. Language proficiency 3
B. Learning task B1. TBI 6
B2. Collaborative learning 1
B3. Problem-based learning 2
C. Impact of the teacher C1. Task design 3
C2. Perception and awareness 3
D. Environment D1. Affordance 5
Note. In order to provide in-depth discussions, studies covered two or more categories were identified, and so the
total frequency counts did not match the number of the reviewed articles.

An analysis of technologies used

The content analysis revealed that the technology used most often was open social virtualities (65.6%), while the
least common were SIE (3.4%) and those in the “not specified” category (3.4%) (see Table 3). Research technologies
used in open social virtualities from 2004 to 2008 employed various platforms, such as 2D text-based MOO (n = 2)
and AW (n = 2). From 2009 to 2013, SL (n = 12) became the most utilized platform. AW, Blue Mars Lite, and
Wonderland were each used once only. The results also showed that researchers demonstrated more interest in the
MMOG type of VR platforms, such as WoW (n = 3) and Civilization (n = 1). While only one platform, Quest
Atlantis, was classified as an SIE, four platforms were identified as “others.” These platforms in the “others”
category can be divided into 3D computer graphic/game development programs (e.g., Unity and Autodesk 3Ds MAX)
and life simulation video games without a specified multiuser function (e.g., The Sims and Sim Theme Park).

Table 3. Percentage of articles related to specific MUVE technologies

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 N (%)
Open social virtualities 0 2 2 0 0 3 1 3 3 5 19 (65.6)
MMOGs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 (13.8)
SIEs 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 (3.4)
Others 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 (13.8)
Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 (3.4)

The trends of VR in research methodology

RQ4 was answered by analyzing the language learning settings, sample groups, and methodological approaches (see
Table 4). It is believed that dividing the analysis of applied methodologies into two five-year-periods (i.e., 2004–
2008 and 2009–2013) will provide a better reference to help researchers make plans in the future. Therefore, the
changes between 2004–2008 and 2009–2013 are particularly illustrated in this section. From 2004 to 2008, the
language learning settings for language exchange (n = 2) and FL (n = 2) were utilized most, followed by L2 (n = 1),
“others” (n = 1), and L1 (n = 0). From 2009 to 2013, the most common language learning setting was FL (n = 16),
followed by “others” (n = 6) and L2 (n = 1). The number of articles on L1 learning remained 0 in second period, and
on language exchange dropped to 0. Furthermore, the percentage of articles on FL increased from 33% to 70%
between the two periods, and the language learning formats in the “others” category also increased from 17% to

490

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
26%. It is noted that the language learning formats in the “others” category were the target language for special
purposes (e.g., business, architecture, and cultural awareness) or a combination of FL, L2, and L1.

Table 4. Analysis of the selected articles related to the study of VR

Year Author(s) Language learning Methodological Data collection
settings/participants approach
2005 Hansson FL. 10 7th-grade pupils Qualitative Text chats
O’Rourke Language exchange. 34 German Quan.+qual. Text chats
and 24 Irish college students
Rilling et al. Others. 4 preservice language Qualitative Learner feedback, teachers’
teachers self-reflection
2006 Peterson FL. 24 college English learners in Qualitative Text and audio transcripts,
Japan observation, questionnaires
Schwienhorst & Language exchange. 34 German Quantitative Text chats, course statistical
Borgia and 26 Irish college students in data
2000-2001. 18 German and 12
Irish college students in 2002-
2003
2008 Ranalli L2. 9 intermediate-level English Quan.+qual. Testing, questionnaire
learners at a university
2009 Deutschmann et al. FL. A comparison of 2 oral Quan.+qual. Audio recordings,
proficiency courses aimed at questionnaires, group
doctoral students evaluations, personal
interviews
Ho et al. L2. 45 12th-grade students Qualitative Screen recordings,
questionnaires, interviews
O’Brien et al. FL. 1st semester: 42 German Quantitative Questionnaires
high-school students
FL. 3rd semester: 33 German
high-school students
Peterson FL. 14 college English learners in Qualitative Questionnaire, text chats,
Japan observations
Zheng et al. FL. 61 middle-school students in Quantitative Testing, survey
China
2010 Peterson FL. 7 college English learners in Qualitative Questionnaire, text chats
Japan
2011 Collentine FL. 58 college Spanish learners Quan.+qual. Text chats, user-tracking data
(learner’s movements,
actions, and choices)
Jauregi et al. FL. 2 Spanish learners & 2 Qualitative Verbal transcripts and
preservice teachers in interaction data,
universities questionnaires, interviews
Wehner et al. FL. 40 Spanish learners at 1 Quantitative Survey
university (SL, n = 20; non-SL,
n = 20)
2012 Cornillie et al. FL. 83 first-year university Quan.+qual. Questionnaires, interviews,
students and learners in high game logs
school
Liang FL. 11 college English learners Quan.+qual. Students’ verbal and chat
transcripts
Liou FL. 25 potential English teachers Qualitative Questionnaires, interviews
Peterson(a) FL. 8 college English learners in Qualitative Text chats, observation,
Japan interviews, questionnaire
Peterson(b) FL. 4 college English learners in Qualitative Text chats, observation,
Japan questionnaires, interviews
Rama et al. FL. 6 college English learners Qualitative Observation, interviews, chat
491

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 transcripts, journal entries
Thorne et al. Others. 32 Dutch & 32 American Qualitative In-/out-of-game texts,
WoW gamers interviews, questionnaire
Zheng et al. Others. Three college-age English Qualitative Verbal transcripts and
learners interaction data, observation
2013 Canto et al. FL. 36 Spanish learners at the Quantitative Observation, verbal testing,
University of Utrecht and 14 questionnaires
preservice teachers at the
University of Valencia
Dooly & Sadler Others. Student-teachers studying Qualitative Classroom and screen
to become language teachers in recordings, verbal and text
Spain and the USA transcripts, forum posts,
email exchanges, self-
evaluation, field notes, etc.
Ryu Others. 6 adults whose L1 is not Qualitative Interaction data, observation,
English interviews
Shih FL. 4 college English learners in Quan.+qual. Cultural knowledge tests,
Taiwan interviews, observation, blog
entries
Wigham & Others. 17 architecture college Qualitative Screen recordings, observation,
Chanier(a) students verbal chats, questionnaires
Wigham & Others. 17 architecture college Quantitative Screen recordings, text and
Chanier(b) students audio transcripts

Table 4 indicates that from 2004 to 2008 the most common research sample groups were in higher education (n = 4),
followed by teachers (n = 1) and elementary school (n = 1). There were no research groups in the junior/senior high
school, adults, special needs, and “others” categories during the initial period. From 2009 to 2013, research samples
in higher education were still used for most of the VR research papers (n = 13), followed by “others” (n = 4),
junior/senior high school (n = 3), teachers (n = 2), and adults (n = 1), with none for elementary school (n = 0) and
special needs (n = 0). Furthermore, declining trends were evident between the two periods in the elementary school
(from 17% to 0%), higher education (from 66% to 57%), and teachers (from 17% to 9%) research subcategories,
while researchers demonstrated increased interest in “others” (from 0% to 17%), junior/senior high school (from 0%
to 13%), and adults (from 0% to 4%).

The results indicated that from 2004 to 2008, the quantitative methodological approach was found in most of the VR
publications (n = 3), followed by the quan.+qual. (n = 2) and quantitative (n = 1) approaches. From 2009 to 2013, the
top ranked research design was still qualitative (n = 13), followed by quan.+qual. (n = 6), and quantitative (n = 4).
The research interest in quan.+qual. decreased from 33% to 26% between the two periods, while that in the
qualitative methodological approach increased from 50% to 57%, while the quantitative research approach remained
at 17%.

Discussion
This study aimed to identify the trends in VR research articles in terms of their research topics, technologies used,
language learning settings, sample groups, and methodological approaches. The results are discussed below.

VR trends in selected journals and research topics

The findings show that the number of VR studies of language learning gradually increased from 2004 to 2013. This
is consistent with Hsu et al. (2012) reporting that the number of articles on technology-based learning concerning
“digital games and intelligent toy enhanced learning” increased significantly between 2000–2004 and 2005–2009
(from 0.81% to 3.82%).

492

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
The content analysis revealed that the most common research topic from 2004 to 2013 was learner differences—
interactive communication. Previous VR research has investigated the role of metalinguistic awareness (O’Rourke,
2005), the kind of interaction management strategies employed by learners (Peterson, 2006), and the factors
influencing the use of these strategies in VLEs (Peterson, 2009). Based on this valuable groundwork, some follow-up
studies have suggested that 3D VLEs affect learner behaviors in terms of linguistic complexity, accuracy, and correct
feedback (e.g., Thorne et al., 2012; Wigham & Chanier, 2013b). As more 3D technologies were developed, the use of
nonverbal communication (e.g., the modalities of proxemics, kinesics, and avatar appearance) has been highlighted
to overcome verbal miscommunication in virtual worlds (Wigham & Chanier, 2013a). It is expected that future
research will focus on examining the effectiveness of learner interactive communication in different VR contexts.

Additionally, learner behaviors, affections, and beliefs have also received considerable attention between the two 5-
year periods. The related studies have consistently found that VLEs increase learner autonomy and self-efficacy,
reduce learning anxiety, and foster creativity. VR presents a realistic virtual space and visible “classmates” who assist
students in gaining a sense of participation and building emotional bonds (positive or negative) with their
collaborative partners (e.g., Collentine, 2011; Deutschmann et al., 2009; Peterson, 2012b). In contrast, negative
perspectives have also been reported, mostly associated with the use of specific VR tools that had user-side and
server-side issues. Overall, a growing trend of individual differences and preferences regarding social identities and
metacognition in virtual worlds should be expected as more learner control functions become available with the use
of these latest advanced technologies (Hsu et al., 2012).

The topics in the learning task—TBI category received particular attention from VR researchers between the two
periods. TBI is characterized by activities that are generally theme venues and emphasize engaging learners in
meaningful, goal-directed communication to collaboratively solve problems and complete assigned tasks. Several
studies found that conducting TBI in VLEs, which involves authenticity and collaborative elements, has a direct
impact on learner participation, engagement, and the amount of negotiation (e.g., Peterson, 2012a). Since TBI has a
wide range of theoretical groundings (e.g., interactionist theory, sociocultural theories, and experiential learning
theory), more research into integrating TBI in VR is expected.

The use of VR tools in CALL

Open social virtualities was found to be the most popular research VR tool, with a consistently high level of interest
across the selected studies. Earlier VR research focused more on MOO and AW, whereas studies performed between
2009 and 2013 switched to the use of SL. This finding suggests that text-based 2D VLEs are no longer able to satisfy
the needs of practitioners. Rather, 3D VR tools with the features of multiple communication channels and high visual
appeal are better suited to creating tasks with greater degrees of interaction and collaboration, and thus can provide
multiple modalities for input, output, and feedback. As a consequence of being widely investigated in the CALL
field, we suggest that SL provides more useful features for language learning than do other open social virtualities
(Warburton, 2009). Additionally, the ReCALL special issue in 2012 prompted a sudden increase in the use of MMOG
platforms, although this was followed by only one study in 2013; this implies that we are still in the exploration stage
of MMOG technology in the CALL field. Future trends should be tracked to see how MMOGs can be used for
language education in the future.

Notwithstanding the positive research results mentioned above, several negative attitudes and both user-side and
server-side problems were mentioned throughout most of the studies. In terms of user-related issues, novice SL users
seem to consistently report negative experiences associated with significant investments of time and energy,
complicated in-world interfaces, and difficulty in writing scripts and modeling behaviors. Server-side issues included
downtime, frequent updates, lag, and large monetary investments (if wishing to be more than a mere spectator) and
hardware requirements (e.g., good graphic cards and a high-speed Internet connection) (e.g., Ho et al., 2009;
Peterson, 2011). Fortunately, some VR software companies have been collaborating with other companies that
operate in different fields of arts and sciences (e.g., topography and physics) in the development of 3D VLEs in order
to make them more user-friendly. Also, the suppliers of VR platforms such as SL have offered cost discounts for
educational and nonprofit institutions. User-related issues could also be solved through long-term training by joining
education-focused online communities, such as the EUROCALL/CALICO Joint Virtual Worlds Special Interest
Group ([Link] and the Virtual Worlds Education Roundtable

493

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
([Link] However, these associations are more focused on teachers than on learners. As Hauck and
Youngs (2008) claimed, there is a high degree of risk in assuming that students will automatically be familiar with
the affordances provided by an online environment. Several studies have claimed that it is essential to provide
students with well-organized prestudy technical training to ensure that in-world learning will be effective.

The trends of VR in language learning settings, sample groups, and research designs

The FL setting was found to be the most common in the VR publications analyzed. This is not surprising, given that
FL learners often do not have ready access to a suitable environment in which to practice and use the target language.
VLEs can overcome this difficulty by providing an immersive and authentic environment to socially interact with
native speakers. The data also showed that the “others” category was the second most common research language
learning setting, appearing in four out of six articles published in 2013. This implies that language learning
environments are becoming more diverse. The learning settings available in cyberspace cannot be divided into
traditional ones, such as FL, L2, or L1; rather, a virtual environment can be a combination of all other environments,
in which users are not constrained to their physical locations—they can mingle together without physical frontiers.

It is noteworthy that two of the earlier studies investigated whether the use of the MOO medium and tandem
exchange—based on mutual language exchange between partners who are native speakers of the target languages—
affect on the negotiation of meaning (O’Rourke, 2005), and whether the implementation of MOO improves the
balance in bilingualism (Schwienhorst & Borgia, 2006). Surprisingly, this language learning format has not received
much attention in recent years, even though the combination of VLEs with tandem courses would make it easy to
create language partnerships across countries.

The current study also found that higher education was the sample group utilized most in VR publications, with
sample groups in elementary and junior/senior high schools being explored less frequently over the last 10 years.
Several factors could explain this research trend. First, this result reflects Rankin, Gold, and Gooch (2006) finding
that lower-level language learners experience difficulties dealing with multiple competencies required by the 3D
VLEs and can experience cognitive overload. Second, some VLEs have age restrictions, such as 16+ years for SL
and 13+ years for WoW. Most VR platforms are commercial products, and the instructors have little control over who
interacts with students outside class times and what locations they visit in a virtual world. Safety therefore remains a
concern, especially in K-12 education settings. To avoid these problems, SL has divided its regions into general,
moderate, and adult regions to avoid adult content being available to users younger than 18 years. Additionally, some
software programs have been developed for use by people of all ages by carefully incorporating pedagogy into the
immersive spaces (e.g., AW Educational Universe and Croquelandia).

Finally, the findings reveal that the qualitative methodological approach was dominant in the VR studies, and that
nearly one-third of the articles used quan.+qual. techniques. This is a reflection of the complexities involved and the
multiple sources of the problems addressed in these studies. Regarding the instrumentation used for data collection,
the relevant studies performed over the past 5 years have overcome earlier research deficiencies, such as solely
utilizing text chats or transcribed audio tapes, which had resulted in a lack of nonlinguistic and paralinguistic
information (O’Rourke, 2005). As presented in Table 4, more recent studies have employed screen recordings or
embedded user-tracking systems with triangulated data collection to strengthen their credibility (e.g., Collentine,
2011; Wigham & Chanier, 2013a). Spector et al. (2014) reported that it has become common to employ qualitative or
quan.+qual. methods with triangulation techniques to investigate and explain complicated issues encountered in the
field of education technology research. Regarding the procedure of data collection, recent attention has emphasized
at-home tasks (Liou, 2012) and the beyond-game culture (Ryu, 2013) for language learning in virtual worlds, rather
than multichannel in-class data collection. This is consistent with Peterson (2012b) predicting that there will be an
increase in the number of education studies focusing on informal outside-class language learning rather than on
formal in-class language learning. This situation has resulted in the recruitment of volunteers as research participants
directly in VLEs becoming a new trend of data collection (see Ryu, 2013).

494

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
Conclusion and future prospects
This study investigated trends in VR research from 2004 to 2013 in the four top CALL journals. The research topics
that have been widely investigated during this period (interactive communication; behaviors, affections, and beliefs;
and TBI) are consistent with VR being advocated as a promising arena for language learners. The findings reveal that
FL educators in higher education are now widely expected to deliver their language instruction with the aid of VR
technologies. Regarding the methodologies, qualitative and quan.+qual. methods with triangulated data collection
will continue to provide rigorous and in-depth analysis of language learning in VLEs. We believe more advanced and
new methods of data collection, such as brain activity and eye tracker data, as well as informal language learning will
evolve to more accurately capture in-world language activities.

However, the content analysis performed in this study revealed several areas in which considerable efforts are
urgently needed. First, only a small proportion of the included articles examined teachers’ perspectives and the
awareness of task design. As Peterson (2011) pointed out, a most effective role of the teacher in VLEs has yet to be
clarified. As a result, little is known from empirical research about how instructors’ roles change in a VR classroom,
teachers’ decision-making on how to integrate pedagogical activities into VLEs by utilizing the strengths of VR, and
how to motivate teachers to adopt and continue using VLEs when teaching (e.g., the method of teacher preparation).
Second, regarding the less developed language learning settings and sample groups, studies of language for specific
purposes and the tandem principle of bilingualism are worth exploring further. As mentioned above, the TBI
approach in theme-based venues can facilitate bilingual language exchanges and language learning for specific
purposes (e.g., tourism and medical applications). The positive results obtained when using VR are consistent with
3D VLEs having the advantage of multichannel communication, which can effectively reduce learning barriers (e.g.,
anxiety and inhibition) (Wehner et al., 2011). Thus, it was felt that virtual worlds have particular potential in assisting
language learners with special needs. For example, students with autism may benefit from learning languages in
virtual worlds since these students might respond better in a low-stress environment where they have more time to
master tasks. We believe that the continuing explorations in the VR field will lead to the development of valuable
new perspectives about and methods of language development.

Finally, this study did not consider relevant conference proceedings and other language and technology-related
publications. Future research should expand the data sources, as well as consider other journals and other analysis
techniques (e.g., citation analysis) so as to include more of the available literature.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research work is provided by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under Grant Nos.
NSC 101-2511-S-003-031-MY3, MOST 104-2911-I-003-301, and MOST 103-2628-S-003-002-MY3. This research
is also partially supported by the Aim for the Top University Project and Center of Learning Technology for Chinese
of NTNU, sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, and the International Research-Intensive Center of
Excellence Program of NTNU.

References
Canto, S., Jauregi, K., & Bergh, H. (2013). Integrating cross-cultural interaction through video-communication and virtual worlds
in foreign language teaching programs: Is there an added value?. ReCALL, 25(1), 105-121.
Collentine, K. (2011). Learner autonomy in a task-based 3D world and production. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 50-
67.
Cornillie, F., Clarebout, G., & Desmet, P. (2012). Between learning and playing? Exploring learners’ perceptions of corrective
feedback in an immersive game for English pragmatics. ReCALL, 24(3), 257-278.
Deutschmann, M., Panichi, L., & Molka-Danielsen, J. (2009). Designing oral participation in Second Life: A comparative study
of two language proficiency courses. ReCALL, 21(2), 206-226.

495

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2013). Filling in the gaps: Linking theory and practice through telecollaboration in teacher education.
ReCALL, 25(1), 4-29.
Hansson, T. (2005). English as a second language on a virtual platform: Tradition and innovation in a new medium. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 18(1), 63-79.
Hauck, M., & Youngs, B. L. (2008). Telecollaboration in multimodal environments: The impact on task design and learner
interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 87-124.
Ho, C. M. L., Rappa, N. A., & Chee, Y. S. (2009). Designing and implementing virtual enactive role-play and structured
argumentation: Promises and pitfalls. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(5), 381-408.
Hsu, Y. C., Ho, H. N. J., Tsai, C. C., Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, N. S. (2012). Research trends in technology-
based learning from 2000 to 2009: A Content analysis of publications in selected journals. Educational Technology & Society,
15(2), 354-370.
Jauregi, K., Canto, S., de Graaff, R., Koenraad, T., & Moonen, M. (2011). Verbal interaction in Second Life: Towards a pedagogic
framework for task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 77-101.
Lee, J. (1999). Effectiveness of computer-based instructional simulation: A Meta-analysis. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 26(1), 71-85.
Liang, M. Y. (2012). Foreign ludicity in online role-playing games. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(5), 455-473.
Liao, Y. K., & Chen, Y. W. (2007). The Effect of computer simulation instruction on student learning: A Meta-analysis of studies
in Taiwan. Journal of Information Technology and Applications, 2(2), 69-79.
Liou, H. C. (2012). The Roles of Second Life in a college computer-assisted language learning (CALL) course in Taiwan, ROC.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(4), 365-382.
O’Brien, M. G., Levy, R., & Orich, A. (2009). Virtual immersion: The Role of CAVE and PC technology. CALICO Journal, 26(2),
337-362.
O’Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433-466.
Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 19(1), 79-103.
Peterson, M. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 22(4), 303-321.
Peterson, M. (2010). Learner participation patterns and strategy use in Second Life: An Exploratory case study. ReCALL, 22(3),
273-292.
Peterson, M. (2011). Towards a research agenda for the use of three-dimensional virtual worlds in language learning. CALICO
Journal, 29(1), 67-80.
Peterson, M. (2012a). EFL learner collaborative interaction in Second Life. ReCALL, 24(1), 20-39.
Peterson, M. (2012b). Learner interaction in a massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG): A Sociocultural
discourse analysis. ReCALL, 24(3), 361-380.
Rama, P. S., Black, R. W., van Es, E. & Warshauer, M. (2012). Affordance for second language learning in World of Warcraft.
ReCALL, 24(3), 322-338.
Ranalli, J. (2008). Learning English with the Sims: Exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 21(5), 441-455.
Rankin, Y., Gold, R., & Gooch, B. (2006). 3D role-playing games as language learning tools. In E. Gröller & L. Szirmay-Kalos
(Eds.), Proceedings of Eurographics, 25(3), 211-225.
Rilling, S., Dahlman, A., Dodson, S., Boyles, C., & Pazvant, O. (2005). Connecting CALL theory and practice in preservice
teacher education and beyond: Process and products. CALICO Journal, 22(2), 213-235.
Ryu, D. (2013). Play to learn, learn to play: Language learning through gaming culture. ReCALL, 25(2), 286-301.
Schwienhorst, K. (2002). The State of VR: A Meta-analysis of virtual reality tools in second language acquisition. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 221-239.

496

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
Schwienhorst, K. & Borgia, A. (2006). Monitoring bilingualism: Pedagogical implications of the bilingual tandem analyser.
CALICO Journal, 23(2), 349-362.
Shih, Y. C. (2013). A Virtual walk through London: Culture learning through a cultural immersion experience. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 1-22. doi:10.1080/09588221.2013.851703
Smart, J., Cascio, J., & Paffendof, J. (2007). Metaverse roadmap: Pathway to the 3D web. Metaverse: A Cross-industry public
foresight project. Retrieved from [Link]
Smith, B., & Lafford, B. A. (2009). The Evaluation of scholarly activity in computer-assisted language learning. Modern
Language Journal, 93(1), 868-883.
Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. J. (Eds.) (2014). Handbook of research for educational communication and
technology. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5
Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments and mobile resources for language
education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528-546.
Thorne, S. L., Fischer, I., & Lu, X. (2012). The Semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online game world. ReCALL,
24(3), 279-301.
Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive
simulation for learning: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229-243.
Wang, S., & Vásquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us?. CALICO Journal, 29(3),
412-430.
Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in
learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414-426.
Wigham, C. R., & Chanier, T. (2013a). A Study of verbal and nonverbal communication in Second Life: The ARCHI21
experience. ReCALL, 25(1), 63-84.
Wigham, C. R., & Chanier, T. (2013b). Interactions between text chat and audio modalities for L2 communication and feedback in
the synthetic world Second Life. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3), 260-283.
Wehner, A. K., Gump, A. W., & Downey, S. (2011). The Effects of Second Life on the motivation of undergraduate students
learning a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 277-289.
Zheng, D., Newgarden, K., Young, M. F. (2012). Multimodal analysis of language learning in World of Warcraft play: Languaging
as values-realizing. ReCALL, 24(3), 339-360.
Zheng, D., Young, M. F., Brewer, R. A., & Wagner, M. (2009). Attitude and self-efficacy change: English language learning in
virtual worlds. CALICO Journal, 27(1), 205-231.

497

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]