ArticlePDF Available


JALTCALL Journal Vol. 16, No.3 Pages 167-180 Virtual Reality (VR) has made significant inroads into both the consumer and professional sectors. As VR has matured as a technology, its overall practicality for use in education has also increased. However, due to the rapid evolution of the technology, the educational field struggles to stay informed of the latest advancements, changing affordances, and pedagogical applications. Even the authors' own 2018 work that categorized VR technology for different educational applications, is no longer completely applicable to the current educational landscape. Though education struggles to keep up with technological developments, both researchers and practitioners have been contributing to a growing body of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, this article explores the progress of VR in educational research and classroom practice through three key questions: (1) What benefits does VR offer for education?, (2) What are the challenges to applying VR in an educational context?, and (3) Has VR matured to a point where it is useful for a wide range of educational purposes? Through a review of literature published from 2017-2020, the authors explore these questions to provide a snapshot of how VR is being used in classrooms and educational research. The authors conclude with predictions for the future and suggestions for future research.
Ryan Lege
Kanda University of International Studies,
Euan Bonner
Kanda University of International Studies,
Virtual reality in
education: e
promise, progress,
and challenge
Virtual Reality (vr) has made significant
inroads into both the consumer and profes-
sional sectors. As vr has matured as a
technology, its overall practicality for use in
education has also increased. However, due
to the rapid evolution of the technology, the
educational field struggles to stay informed
of the latest advancements, changing affor-
dances, and pedagogical applications. Even
the authors’ own 2018 work that categorized
vr technology for different educational
applications, is no longer completely appli-
cable to the current educational landscape.
ough education struggles to keep up with
technological developments, both researchers
and practitioners have been contributing to
a growing body of knowledge and experience.
Accordingly, this article explores the progress
of vr in educational research and classroom
practice through three key questions: (1)
What benefits does vr offer for education?,
(2) What are the challenges to applying vr
in an educational context?, and (3) Has vr
matured to a point where it is useful for a
wide range of educational purposes? rough
a review of literature published from 2017–
2020, the authors explore these questions to
provide a snapshot of how vr is being used
in classrooms and educational research. e
authors conclude with predictions for the
future and suggestions for future research.
Keywords: , virtual reality,
educational technology, distance learning
ISSN 1832-4215
Vol. 16, No.3 Pages 167–180
© 2020 Ryan Lege & Euan Bonner
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License.
e   Journal 2020: Forum
Virtual Reality (
) is a tool that many language educators have considered for use in their
classrooms. However, since  is a continually evolving technology with quickly changing
features, applications, and educational affordances, it is difficult for teachers to understand
exactly what the technology is and what it can bring to their classrooms. During the 1990s
the term virtual reality appeared to have had differing definitions depending on whether it
was being discussed in the consumer space or in academia. In academic articles discussing
, the term was used to describe a variety of modes of 3 avatar-based interactive experi-
ences. (Steuer, 1992; Cruz-Neira, Sandin & DeFanti, 1993; Robertson, Czerwinski & Dantzich,
1997). However, in consumer materials from the same period,  is almost exclusively
referred to as a head-mounted display () or headset that has some level of interactiv-
ity through either head/body rotation and/or motion.
While the advent of new   products starting in early 2010s has further solidified
the definition of  as a headset-powered experience in the mind of popular culture, mod-
ern academic articles can still be found referring to non-headset-based  experiences. In
particular, Linden Labs’ Second Life has been the focus of a number of academic articles on
 despite it being desktop  software using a keyboard, mouse, and monitor (Swanson,
2008; Schmidt & Stewart, 2009; Chen, 2016; Paramaxi, 2020). However perhaps due to the
rise in popularity of newer  headsets, the use of the term  in academia appears to be
shifting towards its more popular consumer definition. Hence moving forward, this article
will focus on the considerable number of research articles that have emerged recently
focused on  as a headset only.
In the  technology space, the technology has gone through a period of rapid innova-
tion since the release of the first modern headsets in 2013. Every year since then until the
time of writing this article, new headsets have become available that have added new lev-
els of immersion, removed barriers to entry or have simply lowered the price significantly
compared to previous devices. For educators, each new innovation has brought  closer
to becoming a practical tool for use in classrooms around the world. However, due to this
rapid innovation, academic research on their use in classrooms from as few as five years
ago can now have little connection to the current state of the technology.
Even this paper’s authors’ own research into the affordances of  for education, pub-
lished as recently as 2018, is already dated (Lege & Bonner, 2018). In that paper the authors
categorized  into three separate categories: High-end, mobile and mass-distributed, each
with their own classroom affordances and activities. High-end
encapsulated the most
powerful  hardware, providing fully interactive head and hand tracking experiences
tethered to powerful and expensive s. Mobile vr focused on using flagship quality smart-
phones to power simple  headsets, providing limited interactive games and experiences.
encompassed disposable cardboard headsets powered by any smart
phone, offering passive 360-degree video viewing.
As of late 2020, the middle category, mobile vr, is already obsolete, with both Google
and Samsung, the manufacturers of smartphone-powered  headsets, ending production
of the devices in late 2019 (Roettgers, 2019; Hayden, 2019). is category has since been
replaced with standalone  headsets. ese devices offer all the immersion and full head
and hand tracking experiences of high-end  but require no tethering to a  or smart-
phone and are available for less than the price of a cheap laptop computer.
is rapid change in the technology highlights the need for up-to-date information to
Lege & Bonner: Virtual reality in education
be made available for anyone looking to use  in their learning environments. e chang-
ing landscape of
has opened a wealth of new opportunities that require a wealth of
new research. As the hardware continues to improve and the price keeps decreasing, the
affordances for classrooms will continue to change.
Implementing new technologies to meet curricular demands and reach instructional
outcomes is often a difficult process, requiring a lot of trial and error. Tertiary education
frequently benefits from connected well-funded research environments, allowing for sys-
tematic testing and implementation of technologies. On the other hand, most primary and
secondary educational environments simply lack the funding, knowhow, and capacity to
pursue this method of data driven adoption, except in the rare cases when hardware manu-
facturers sponsor research in these domains. When
is used in primary to secondary
education, publications take on the form of blogs and word of mouth style communication
that are often informal and anecdotal, providing little support for their claims. However,
this does not lessen the importance of these publications, as these  educational experi-
ences can provide great insights into the pedagogy driving actual use of . e claims and
perceived benefits also provide researchers with hypotheses to investigate further in later
rigorous testing. Hence, the authors will include a review of both types of  publications,
those written scientifically and those that are aimed at the general public, in an effort to bet-
ter encapsulate the true state of  in education in 2021. To do so, authors will include pub-
lications within the range of 2017–2020. e paper will focus on the following questions:
1. What benefits does  offer for education?
2. What are the challenges to applying  in an educational context?
3. Has  matured to a point where it is useful for a wide range of educational purposes?[
VR in education 2017–2020
What benefits does VR offer for education?
is a novel technology for many, though its prevalence at theme parks
and attractions have begun to some degree to reduce its mystique. Notwithstanding the
increasing likelihood that students have at some point experienced a form of
reducing the novelty factor,  in education has consistently been found to be motivating
and exciting for students. Researchers frequently include measures of motivation and inter-
est in their studies, and their findings consistently show that  stimulates participants’
interest and engagement with the subject matter (Costa & Melotti, 2012).  has also
been linked to a rise in student’s motivation by many researchers (see Tai, Chen, & Todd,
2020; Cho, 2018; Kaplan-Rakowski & Wojdynski, 2018; Velev, 2017). In their study compar-
ing a lesson delivered using a slideshow to a lesson using
, Parong and Mayer (2018)
found that students were “happier, more excited, and less bored” (p. 8) when taught using
. Kavanagh, Luxton-Reilly, Wuensche, and Plimmer (2017) point out as a part of their
systematic review of  research from 2010 to 2017 that “the increased immersion facili-
tated by  was mentioned as a motivation factor in 46 (out of 99) of the papers analyzed
(making it the most commonly mentioned factor)” (p. 96). For now, or until the technology
becomes banal,  promotes interest and excitement, the importance of which cannot be
underplayed, as learning does not take place effectively in the absence of these catalysts.
Inaccessible environments.  technology allows users to supplant their current reality
e   Journal 2020: Forum
with a virtual environment that can be any location, real or imagined. Educators can lever-
age this capability to meet educational objectives that cannot satisfactorily be met within
the constraints imposed by the current physical location. In many contexts, activities such
as field trips are both logistically and cost prohibitive. However, projects like Blazauskas,
Maskeliunas, and Kersiene’s (2017), which used  as a way to conduct a historical tour
of a city, show that  can provide access to learning experiences. Researchers Hu-Au and
Lee (2018) note that  is perfect for schools seeking learning experiences, but unable to
venture out into the field. Educators have been using  for this very purpose. Nicolson
(2018), head of a primary school in the , notes that their school used  to teach about
inaccessible environments like the arctic or deep ocean. Hunt, from Oak Run Middle School
in Texas, , said of their virtual field trip initiative that “We want to encourage students
to look beyond their hometowns and realize there’s a big world out there for them to see”
(2018). Harvard University’s Nicole Mills employed
to allow French students to visit
Paris, noting that the  experiences “captured a part of Parisian daily culture that often
can’t be described in words (i.e., the sounds, the atmosphere, etc.)” (“Virtual reality narra-
tives in foreign language pedagogy,” 2020, para. 1). At a university in Japan, Frazier and
Roloff-Rothman (2019) used  to provide access for global issues students to refugee
camps, American political rallies and religious pilgrimages via 360-degree videos. ey
noted that “joining believers on the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca or wandering the halls of
a Buddhist temple in a far-away country can make religion come alive in a way that two-
dimensional videos cannot” (p. 15). e sense of presence generated by the marriage of qual-
hardware and software can enable powerful experiences in any conceivable location.
It is also worth noting that these experiences also provide those with limited mobility with
an equal way to join their classmates in such virtual journeys. However, it should be noted
that the benefits of using
for these types of experiences are notoriously hard to measure
through empirical research and data collection.
Spatial memory. Promoting engagement and fostering motivation is not the only area
where  can influence education. Immersive  places learners within a virtual space
and allows them to move freely and interact within that space. is allows for not only
locomotion, but the ability to see objects and scenes from multiple angles and perspectives.
Researchers such as Pollard et. al (2020) have hypothesized that this could lead to increased
retention and recall of the scene and objects within it. Pollard et. al designed a rigorous
within-subjects design study investigating spatial learning in virtual environments over
three conditions: Low, medium, and high immersion. e conditions differed with regards
to the technology employed to deliver content: e low-immersion condition used a desktop
monitor and speakers, medium used a head-mounted display (
) that partially occluded
participants’ surroundings, and the high-immersion condition used a high-end  system,
the Oculus Rift. e high-immersion condition performed significantly better on both the
yes/no object and the multiple-choice measures compared to the medium and low groups
(p. 6). e researchers hypothesize that the ability to view the scenes from multiple angles
may have contributed to these results.
Cho (2018) similarly focused on the ability of
to orient users within a virtual environ-
ment. Cho’s study focused on the concept of Memory of Loci (see Foer, 2012), in which memo-
ries are stored in sequential locations based within a mental image (often referred to as
memory palaces). Cho found that “due to a sense of presence, if learners replicate language
study in  simulation, it can help them remember words more efficiently” (p. 59). Huttner
Lege & Bonner: Virtual reality in education
and Robra-Bissantz also conducted a study comparing the use of  for creating memory
palaces to those displayed on a laptop display and were able to show a 5–7% increase in
test scores for the  group versus the laptop (2017). Comparable research conducted by
Krokos, Plaisant, and Varshney comparing desktop
s and
found similar results (2018).
researchers have examined whether
is able to improve learning
and retention of vocabulary in a new language. Tai, Chen, and Todd (2020) conducted
an experiment comparing student performance following content delivered by video to
content experienced in . Participants were given a delayed posttest by the researchers
who found “ players demonstrated better vocabulary retention than the video watchers”
and that “ appears to have helped learners store the target words in long term memo-
ries” (p. 13). While these results are promising, it should be noted that in this study the
 participants were able to directly interact with the content, while the video watchers
were passive, possibly explaining the significant results. However, other researchers have
also found similar results. Madini and Alshaikhi’s (2017) study examined the use of
videos for vocabulary retention, finding that  helped participants to retain lexical items.
In addition, Alfadil (2017) carried out a comparative study in which  was pitted against
traditional best practice for vocabulary. e researchers found a similar result showing that
participants using  “had greater achievement in learning vocabulary than those using
the traditional method in learning vocabulary” (p. 49). Perhaps, the additional dimension
of spatial orientation offered by  allows for learners to create more mental connections
(connecting more neurons), in turn leading to greater memory retention.
Empathy training.  not only allows users to visit new worlds, but also offers the ability
to place the user in the position of another person. e implications of this have not been
lost on developers or educators, as evidenced by the large numbers of high-quality 
experiences designed for the purpose of fostering empathy and promoting understanding.
Some of these popular applications include Anne Frank House
, Driving While Black, Notes
on Blindness, and Stanford University’s Becoming Homeless: A Human Experience. Chang et.
al (2019) even taught students about sexism in math classes by having students embody
the perspective of female students.
Dr. Courtney Cogburn of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford University cre-
ated 1000 Cut Journey, “an immersive virtual reality experience that allows you to walk in
the shoes of Michael Sterling, a Black male, and encounter racism first-hand, as a young
child, an adolescent, and a young adult.” is project, conducted as a part of an investiga-
tion into empathy and perspective taking, was aimed at helping students understand the
realities of racism and promote effective and collective social action (Roswell et al., 2020).
Educators have also benefited from the wealth of 360-degree videos that can be viewed
in  to help learners understand more of the human experience by placing them in the
position of others. Educators have had their students experience the Syrian refugee crisis
American political rallies, and a Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca (Frazier & Roloff-Rothman, 2019).
When used in this manner to build empathy, researchers have found that  offers
unique benefits when compared with other mediums of instruction. Stavroulia and Lanitis
(2019) used  to help teacher trainees experience what it is like to be both a student and
a teacher of a class. eir study showed significance with regards to “the empathy scale
related to the teachers’ ability to put himself/herself in the position of a student who
is racially and/or ethnically different” (p. 32). Herrera, Bailenston, Weisz, Ogle, and Zak
(2018) conducted a study examining the effects of using immersive  to teach about the
e   Journal 2020: Forum
experience of homelessness and compared this to the effect of a first-person text-based
narrative. Participants received follow-up surveys at two, four, and eight weeks after the
intervention. With regards to attitudes towards the homeless and dehumanization of the
homeless, the study found that though participant attitudes were similar immediately fol-
lowing the intervention, “the attitudes deteriorated at a significantly slower rate and were
consistently more favorable for participants in the [
] condition than the participants
in the [non-] condition” (p. 19). Herrera et al. also reported that participants in the 
condition “reported feeling more connected and empathetic toward the homeless” (p. 29).
e immersive capabilities of
can allow for powerful perspective-taking tasks; experi-
ences that may lead to lasting learning.
Distance learning.
also has the potential to extend learning opportunities to new places
and demographics beyond face-to-face learning. Its potential to bring people together
across large distances and provide them with immersive environments where they can
interact with others may help overcome the shortcomings of current online learning and
distance education practices. Chang, Zhang, and Jin (2017) outline the potential role of 
in distance education focusing on the potential affordances offered by multi-user virtual
campuses where students can meet and work together. Additionally, the authors’ own paper
(Frazier, Bonner, and Lege, 2019) outlines some of the current affordances and limitations
of  for distance learning. In this paper, the authors discussed the continuing issue of
the rapidly changing software landscape and the difficulty in creating content for multi-
user  software when the software’s continued existence hinges on its mass adoption by
a very small user base (p. 4).
In their review of  literature Kavanagh et al. (2017), found that a number of papers
referenced using  for distance learning. While in many cases, these references deal with
the perceived benefits or potential of  for this kind of learning (see Clark, 2019), there
have been a few research studies evaluating its actual use in practice. Urueta and Ogi
(2020) found that
was useful for task-based language distance learning, noting that
when used correctly,  can provide alternative immersive learning methods with a high
level of student-teacher interaction” (p. 366). Berns et al. (2019) created a language learning
 environment focused on AI voice-activated 360-degree videos, providing opportunities
for distance learners to immerse themselves in realistic 2nd-language environments and
interact with virtual conversational agents. e 2020 coronavirus pandemic has shifted
the focus of practically all education towards distance education, acting as a catalyst for
research and practice searching for more effective methods of remote learning.  is likely
to receive more scrutiny for its ability to provide experiences that have become difficult in
the current situation.
What are the challenges to applying VR in an educational context?
Lack of VR specific pedagogy. ough  can be force-fitted into existing educational
paradigms with some success, researchers agree that to use it to its potential for learning
there needs to be solid pedagogy associated with . Hu-Au and Lee (2018) argue that if
educators simply try to replicate “face-to-face didactic experiences of learning” (p. 223), this
will only result in problematic implementation. Elmqaddem (2019) points out that “it will
be necessary to know how to build and deploy educational programs that are well adapted
to this technology” (p. 237). Scavarelli et al. (2020) remark that the greatest challenge in
Lege & Bonner: Virtual reality in education
using  is “determining how best to utilize this technology to better enhance students’
learning in a manner that is not merely recreating, or replacing the physical classroom” (p.
17). erefore, pedagogy needs to be developed directly for . Indeed, in many of the cur-
rent works reviewing
for educational purposes a common criticism is a lack of informed
pedagogy underpinning use of .
is may also be a contributing factor explaining the mixed findings in the literature.
Without a clear pedagogy as a basis for the underpinning instructional design of a given
activity, it is difficult to evaluate the activity, as the methodology itself may not have been
suitable for learning in . Even back in 2015, Fowler recognized the issue that “it is dif-
ficult, and some would say impossible to separate the technology from the pedagogy” (p.
421). is sentiment is still a valid concern today and is especially important as, at the
time of publication of this article, the viability of using  for education has dramatically
increased as a result of falling prices and higher market penetration. Recognizing this,
there have been recent developments on the development of a -specific pedagogy. First,
Southgate’s (2020) Actioned Pedagogy for Immersive Learning guides educators interested
in  to consider important questions about the teacher themselves, the learners, and the
technology. Lege, Bonner, Frazier, and Pascucci (2020) developed a framework to analyze
commercial off-the-shelf ()  applications to help educators successfully use them
in the classroom. However, there is still a need for educators to apply these frameworks in
a way that supports sound pedagogical application of . It is clear, however, that more
research needs to be carried out to clearly ascertain what instructional needs  can fulfil
better than other mediums of instruction.
ough there is a need for a  specific pedagogy, there are some common threads
identified in the literature that provide clear pedagogical direction. Kavanagh et. al (2017)
conducted an exhaustive review of publications focused on  in education. Many studies
they reviewed identified constructivism as justification for focusing on . Constructivism
is “allowing students to construct their own knowledge from meaningful experiences’’ (Hu-
Au & Lee, 2018). Constructivism’s focus on providing meaningful experiences is a founda-
tion for many hands-on educational approaches that are diametrically opposed to more
traditional educational models that focus on rote memorization or test taking. Hu-Au and
Lee go so far to say that education using  “should be founded on constructivist learning
models’’ (p. 223). Indeed, the immersive experiences of well-designed  allow for learners
to engage in meaningful experiences, which they then can use to develop their understand-
ing of a subject. In Makransky, Terkildsen, and Mayer’s (2017) science lab simulation study,
participants received text-based instructions that they followed in a  recreation of a
science laboratory. is was followed by multiple-choice quizzes combined with actually
completing the lab tasks in . ey found “the  group produced significantly higher
ratings of presence than the  group” (p. 8), but that this led to less learning of the target
concepts. e design of this particular task may not have been suitable for leveraging the
strengths of , which according to the tenets of constructivism should be focused on
the experience itself, rather than on details presented through text prompts. Accordingly,
another challenge facing educators and researchers is leveraging the unique affordances
of  through instructional and research designs that operate within models such as
Cognitive demand. , in and of itself, is far from being a solution to the complex needs
and demands of the educational sector. In fact, there are unique challenges to using
e   Journal 2020: Forum
e immersive capacity of  is not only its greatest affordance, it is also a factor that may
contribute to the difficulty of using it effectively. Pollard et. al (2020) remark that “higher
levels of immersion sometimes do not improve learning performance” (p. 2). Parong and
Mayer (2018) explain that learning is better in the absence of extraneous input, noting that
the complex nature of immersive
can lead to “extraneous cognitive processing” (p. 2), in
turn detracting from the ability of the medium to promote learning of a specific concept. In
their words, “Immersive  may create so much extraneous cognitive processing that the
learner does not have sufficient cognitive resources left to learn the essential material in the
lesson” (p. 10). Makransky, Terkildsen, and Mayer (2017) observed that when participants
of their study were using  there was an increase on the processing demands of working
memory that led to a decrease in knowledge acquisition.
Cognitive load (Sweller, 1994) is a real concern when using  to teach a specific concept,
as the human brain has finite resources to devote to a task. However, with the knowledge
that this is a potential problem, educators can scaffold and take action to mitigate this issue.
is is exactly what Parong and Mayer (2018) did in their study, by introducing summary
tasks in between  sessions. When they incorporated this, they were able to achieve the
same learning outcomes as their control group, while maintaining the other positive effects
introduced by , such as engagement and motivation. Carefully considering both cogni-
tive demands placed on the learner and the learning outcomes is important when planning
 educational experiences.  may not be the most suitable instructional medium, or it
may be effective only when properly scaffolded.
Immersion breaking. While cognitive load is something that can be to an extent controlled
through instructional design, there are other factors that can render  ineffective for edu-
cation. e degree to which a
experience is able to immerse users depends on a complex
confluence of factors stemming from both  hardware and software. If this is not done
well, the immersive benefits of  can be diminished by illusion-breaking elements such
as visual aberrations or low-quality 3D assets. Kavanagh et. al (2017), in their review of sci-
entific studies related to  in education, found that some studies indicated that if the 
experience was insufficiently realistic, “this may detract for the learning experience” (p. 102).
is does not mean that every experience needs true-to-life, photorealistic visuals (many
of the best  experiences use a low-poly, simple color palette art style), but that there is
consistency and a lack of visual elements that distract from the experience. If immersion is
broken, learners are missing out on the primary reason to use  in the first place.
It is also important to consider the technology’s limitations in maintaining immersion.
Low resolution displays, especially on mass-distributed  experiences, can make visuals
appear blurry and permanently out of focus. Visual aberrations and stuttering caused by
complex visual environments can cause nausea, especially when users turn their heads too
quickly. High temperatures, humidity and headset discomfort from extended use can all
also break immersion by inducing sweat, fogging the lenses and irritating the skin.
Other considerations. While
’s popularity continues to grow, it is still a niche technology
that may be unfamiliar to both students and teachers alike. Southgate et al. (2018) assert
that teachers need to introduce
into their classrooms in a measured manner, taking
into account the novelty aspect and the need to address it before beginning the classroom
activities proper. ey state “Students needed time to play in () to emerge from the
Lege & Bonner: Virtual reality in education
novelty stage to familiarize themselves with its affordances and consider how these might
be used in learning tasks” (p. 8).
Southgate et al. (2019) also draws attention to the need to focus on gender when con-
sidering  for classroom activities, especially in secondary education. “Girls were much
less likely to have had previous exposure to  with a , and wearing the  was
problematic for a small number of girls who found it uncomfortable or ‘embarrassing’”’ (p.
28). Issues surrounding femininity, masculinity, and “the male gaze” need to be accounted
for in a medium that prevents the user from being able to see the gaze of others and how
they themselves appear to others in the classroom while they are present in .
Technology continues to evolve rapidly, changing everyday norms and influencing every
facet of human existence. Even simply being aware of the latest technological innova-
tions can be daunting, and applying the technology even more so. e field of education
often adapts to change more slowly than other sectors, but always inevitably transforms
to embrace or accommodate change. New technologies, once consigned to the fringes
of education in the hands of tech-savvy teachers, often become part of the mainstream
paradigm. Digital delivery of lessons through video conferencing software once fell
into this category, but now has become an educational norm.  has now begun this
transition from a fringe technology to a technology capable of being used in mainstream
practice. e  of 5 years ago is radically different from the  of today, meaning that
beliefs and common assumptions about the technology may in actuality be entirely false.
Educators would do well to stay abreast of advances to the technology and avoid dismiss-
ing  as a gadget for only the “tech teachers.”  has matured to a point where it is
not only theoretically useful for educational purposes but has clear practical applications.
Falling costs, mass-market availability, and improved immersive capabilities mean that
 is not only feasible, but practical for educational use.
Whilst there are now clear applications and pedagogies developing around
, there
remain important considerations and challenges unique to the technology.  is still new
enough that it retains a novelty factor when used in classrooms. Upon initial use, teachers
may observe high levels of student engagement and motivation and see this as the pri-
mary benefit of the technology. However, it is imperative that educators move beyond this
honeymoon phase and focus on the pedagogies and experiences that  makes possible.
Without clear pedagogical justification and student outcomes in place,
can become just
a diversion or distraction.
e 2020 coronavirus pandemic has also highlighted just how much global issues can
impact educational models. , in particular, is a device that students wear, meaning that
especially in the current situation, sanitation is a huge concern; possibly rendering the
concept of a classroom set of  headsets obsolete. Instead,  has been receiving atten-
tion as a tool for distance education and home study. It may become a key player in a post
device era “where digital technology use diversifies beyond the dominance of laptop/tablet/
smartphone use” (Godhe, Lilja, & Selwyn, 2019, p. 1). e ingrained weaknesses that are part
of current educational technologies are creating a niche, one that may just be filled by .
e   Journal 2020: Forum
Alfadil, M. M. (2017). Virtual reality game classroom implementation: Teacher
perspectives and student learning outcomes. Dissertations, 408.
Bagher, M. M. (2020). Immersive  and embodied learning: e role of embodied
affordances in the long-term retention of semantic knowledge. Proceedings – 2020
ieee Conference on Virtual Reality and 3d User Interfaces, vrw 2020.50115.2020.00120
Beck, D. (2019). Special issue: Augmented and virtual reality in education: Immersive
learning research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(7), 1619–1625.
Berns, A., Ruiz-Rube, I., Mota, J. M., Dodero, J. M., Castro, E., Ryynanen, O., & Werner,
L. (2019). “Let’s date!” A 360-degree video application to support foreign language
learning. In F. Meunier, J. Van de Vyver, L. Bradley & S. ouësny (Eds), call and
Complexity – Short Papers from eurocall 2019: eurocall 2019 (pp. 39–44).
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: European Association for Computer-Assisted Language
Blazauskas, T., Maskeliunas, R., Bartkute, R., Kersiene, V., Jurkeviciute, I., & Dubosas, M.
(2017). Virtual reality in education: New ways to learn. Communications in Computer
and Information Science, 756(February 2018), 457–465.
Chang, F., Luo, M., Walton, G., Aguilar, L., & Bailenson, J. (2019). Stereotype threat
in virtual learning environments: Effects of avatar gender and sexist behavior on
women’s math learning outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Chang, X., Zhang, D., & Jin, X. (2017). Application of virtual reality technology in distance
learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(11).
Chen, J. (2016). e crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and
3 multi-user virtual learning in Second Life. Computers & Education, 102. https://
Cho, Y. (2018). How spatial presence in  affects memory retention and motivation on
second language learning: A comparison of desktop and immersive -based learning.
ProQuest Dissertations and eses, May.
Clark, J. T. (2019). Distance education. In Clinical Engineering Handbook, Second Edition
(Second Edition). Elsevier Inc.
Constine, J. (2015, February 2). Virtual reality, the empathy machine. Tech Crunch.
Costa, N., & Melotti, M. (2012). Digital media in archaeological areas, virtual reality,
authenticity and hyper-tourist gaze. Sociology Mind, 02(01), 53–60.
Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D., & DeFanti, T. (1993). Surround-screen projection-based virtual
reality: the design and implementation of the . siggraph ’93: Proceedings of the
20th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, September 1993.
Lege & Bonner: Virtual reality in education
Elmqaddem, N. (2019). Augmented reality and virtual reality in education. Myth or
reality? International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(3), 234–242.
Foer, Joshua. (2012). Feats of memory anyone can do. Video. Ted Talk Lecture Series.
Fowler, C. (2015). Virtual reality and learning: Where is the pedagogy? British Journal of
Educational Technology, 46(2), 412–422.
Frazier, E., & Roloff-Rothman, J. (2019, July). Language learning for global citizenship
with 360. Global Issues in Language Education Newsletter, 111, 14–16.
Frazier, E., Bonner, E., & Lege, R. (2019). A brief investigation into the potential for
virtual reality: A tool for 2nd language learning distance education in Japan. e
Language and Media Learning Research Center Annual Report, 2018, 211–216.
Godhe, A. L., Lilja, P., & Selwyn, N. (2019). Making sense of making: critical issues in the
integration of maker education into schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(3),
Hayden, S. (2019, September 26). Oculus  explains why “Gear ’s days are
numbered”. Road to vr.
Herrera, F., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., Ogle, E., & Zak, J. (2018). Building long-term empathy:
A large-scale comparison of traditional and virtual reality perspective-taking. In plos
one (Vol. 13, Issue 10).
Huang, K. T., Ball, C., Francis, J., Ratan, R., Boumis, J., & Fordham, J. (2019). Augmented
versus virtual reality in education: An exploratory study examining science
knowledge retention when using augmented reality/virtual reality mobile
applications. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.
Hu-Au, E., & Lee, J. J. (2018). Virtual reality in education: a tool for learning in the
experience age. International Journal of Innovation in Education, 4(4), 215–226..2017.10012691
Hunt, A. (2018). Using Class for virtual field trips at Oak Run Middle School. Class VR.
Huttner, J., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2017). An immersive memory palace: Supporting the
method of Loci with virtual reality. In amcis 2017 Proceedings: e Twenty-third
Americas Conference on Information Systems. Boston, : Association for Information
Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Wojdynski, T. (2018). Students’ attitudes toward high-immersion
virtual reality assisted language learning. In P. Taalas, J. Jalkanen, L. Brandley, & S.
ouësny (Eds), Future-Proof call: Language Learning as Exploration and Encounters –
Short Papers from eurocall 2018, December, 124–129.
Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., & Plimmer, B. (2017). A systematic review
of virtual reality in education. emes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2),
e   Journal 2020: Forum
Krokos, A., Plaisant, C., & Varshney, A. (2018). Virtual memory palaces: Immersion aids
recall. Virtual Reality, 23, 1–15.
Lege, R., & Bonner, E. (2018). e state of virtual reality in education. e Language and
Media Learning Research Center Annual Report, 2017, 149–156.
Lege, R., Bonner, E., Frazier, E., & Pascucci, L. (2020). Pedagogical Considerations for
Successful Implementation of Virtual Reality in the Language Classroom. 24–46.
Madini, A. A., & Alshaikhi, D. (2017). Virtual reality for teaching  vocabulary: A myth
or a possibility. International Journal of English Language Education, 5(2), 111.
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality
to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and
Instruction, 60(November), 225–236.
Nicholson, C. (2018, February 27). How we use  in the classroom. Our Academy Blog.
Parmar, D. (2017). Evaluating the effects of immersive embodied interaction on cognition
in virtual reality. ProQuest Dissertations and eses.
Parmaxi, A. (2020). Virtual reality in language learning: a systematic review and
implications for research and practice. Interactive Learning Environments.
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785–797.
Pollard, K. A., Oiknine, A. H., Files, B. T., Sinatra, A. M., Patton, D., Ericson, M., omas,
J., & Khooshabeh, P. (2020). Level of immersion affects spatial learning in virtual
environments: results of a three-condition within-subjects study with long
intersession intervals. Virtual Reality.
Robertson, G., Czerwinski, M., & Danzich, M. (1997). Immersion in desktop virtual reality.
uist ’97: Proceedings of the 10th annual acm symposium on user interface software and
technology, October 1997, 11–19.
Roettgers, J. (2019, October 15). Google ships Pixel 4 without Daydream  support,
stops selling Daydream Viewer. Variety.
Roswell, R. O., Cogburn, C. D., Tocco, J., Martinez, J., Bangeranye, C., Bailenson, J. N.,
Wright, M., Mieres, J. H., & Smith, L. (2020). Cultivating empathy through virtual
reality. Academic Medicine. Advance online publication..0000000000003615
Scavarelli, A., Arya, A., & Teather, R. J. (2020). Virtual reality and augmented reality in
social learning spaces: a literature review. Virtual Reality, 0123456789.
Schmidt, B., & Stewart, S. (2009). Implementing the virtual reality learning environment:
Second Life, Nurse Educator, 34(4), 152–155..0b013e3181aabbe8
Lege & Bonner: Virtual reality in education
Selzer, M. N., Gazcon, N. F., & Larrea, M. L. (2019). Effects of virtual presence and learning
outcome using low-end virtual reality systems. Displays.
Southgate, E. (2020). Virtual reality in curriculum and pedagogy: Evidence from
secondary classrooms. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Southgate, E., Buchanan, R., Cividino, C., Saxby, S., Weather, G., Smith, S. P., Bergin, C.,
Kilham, J., Summerville, D., & Scevak, J. (2018). What teachers should know about
highly immersive virtual reality: Insights from the  School Study. Scan 37(4).
Southgate, E., Smith, S. P., Cividino, C., Saxby, S., Kilham, J., Weather, G., Scevak, J.,
Summerville, D., Buchanan, R., & Bergin, C. (2018). Embedding immersive virtual
reality in classrooms: Ethical, organisational and educational lessons in bridging
research and practice. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 19(2019).
Stavroulia, K. E., & Lanitis, A. (2019). Enhancing reflection and empathy skills via
using a virtual reality based learning framework. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning, 14(7), 18–36.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of
Communication, 42(4), 73–93.
Swanson, K. (2008) Second Life: A science library presence in virtual reality. Science &
Technology Libraries, 27(3), 79–86.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design.
Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.
Tai, T. Y., Chen, H. H. J., & Todd, G. (2020). e impact of a virtual reality app on
adolescent  learners’ vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning.
Urueta, S. H., & Ogi, T. (2020). A  virtual reality system for high-presence distance
learning. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 1036). Springer
International Publishing.
Velev, D. (2017). Virtual reality challenges in education and training. International Journal
of Language and Teaching, 3(1), 33–37.
Virtual reality narratives in foreign language pedagogy (n.d.). Harvard
Initiative for Learning and Teaching.
Author biodata
Ryan F. Lege 
Ryan Lege is a principal lecturer of professional development in  at Kanda University
of International Students. His research interests include effective design for educational
purposes, input enhancement, and the application of new technologies such as  and
 into educational practice.
e   Journal 2020: Forum
Euan R. Bonner 
Euan Bonner is an educational technology researcher for the Language, Media &
Learning Research Centre at Kanda University of International Studies. His areas of
research interest include , uses for ,  &  in education, improving digital
literacies, and educational application development.
... According to Lege & Bonner (2020), the adoption of VR is motivating and exciting for students. It increases students' learning motivation and stimulates participants' interest and engagement with the subject matter (Costa & Melotti, 2012;Makransky & Lilleholt, 2018). ...
... It gives a realistic experience to emergent bilinguals where they interact with virtual characters or objects that greatly enhance their learning achievement (Yang et al., 2010). Besides, it empowers language educators with the tools to meet educational objectives that can't be Figueroa-Flores, J., Huffman, L., Lozada, V., & Rosa-Dávila, E. completed satisfactorily within the constraints imposed by the current physical location (Lege & Bonner, 2020). ...
... To answer the first research question pertaining to the strengths of VR, the perceptions of the bilingual and ESL pre-service teachers are aligned with the findings on previous research, especially with the increase of student engagement and motivation (Costa & Melotti, 2012;Lege & Bonner, 2020, Marín-Díaz et al, 2022. Once emergent bilinguals are engaged and motivated academic performance improves (Brown, 2014;Mahdikhani & Rezaei, 2015). ...
Full-text available
... First, as VR technology continues to improve, adding a new level of immersion and reducing the entry barriers, public acceptability and functional capacity of technology have changed [62]. Prior studies might have less connection to the ongoing state of the technology [56]. Second, it is worth noting that higher education setting is a complex ecosystem [50]. ...
A rapid increase in using virtual reality for educational purposes has been seen in the past two decades, although it has a history of about sixty years. A considerable amount of literature has been published about the use of virtual reality in education; however, it has been determined that there are many problems in this field due to the nature of science and there are many factors affecting users. Moreover, the need for educational virtual reality studies with a holistic perspective is increasing, and it has been expressed by more and more researchers every day. In this context, the purpose of this study is to experience and report the process of designing, developing, and testing an educational virtual reality environment in the light of a model that includes pedagogical, design and technical steps with a holistic perspective. This dissertation has examined the way in which the platform was developed within the scope of research and named EVRECA, and which offers a skill-based education environment to learners. Furthermore, it is aimed to take steps for the efficient execution of the design and development process, to test the effect on the learning experience, to determine the effects on the participants' cognitive and psychological aspects, as well as their relationship, and to examine the platform's technical performance efficiency. In line with the determined goal and objectives, the methodological approach taken in the study is Educational Design Research and the study was carried out in a two meso loop. The design and development process of the EVRECA platform conducted in accordance with the VRID design model. Thirteen people were included in the expert group of the research, four participants took part in the first evaluation practice and fourteen participants in the second evaluation practice carried out on the EVRECA platform. The Internet of Things training process in the platform was completed in a single session with each participant. Then, Academic Achievement Test, Practice Exam, Cognitive Load Scale, Presence Questionnaire, The Affect Grid, and Semi-Structured Interview Form were used as data collection tools after the practices. The Unity Stats and Graphy tools were used to analyze the platform's technical efficiency.
Full-text available
The purpose was to investigate the Arabic language teachers' perspectives on online VC effectiveness during and beyond COVID-19. Participants were 340 teachers. This study employed cross-sectional descriptive method, with the main focus on Arabic Language teachers' perspectives on online VC effectiveness during and beyond COVID-19. Findings from descriptive analysis of the teachers’ responses on the importance of using virtual classrooms in distance education program shoed that the rank agree comes first, where teachers responded with agree in 17 items, 2 with strongly agree and only one item for disagree. Using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), findings showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the responses of the study sample towards the use of virtual classrooms by gender, while academic qualification and years of experience contributed significantly, where those with higher qualification, and who are experts had positive perspectives on online VCs effectiveness during and beyond COVID-19. KEYWORDS. Virtual Teaching, Online Virtual Classroom, Covid-19
Full-text available
In this survey, we explore Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality within social learning spaces, such as classrooms and museums, while also extending into relevant social interaction concepts found within more reality-based and social immersive media frameworks. To provide a foundation for our findings we explore properties and interactions relevant to educational use in social learning spaces; in addition to several learning theories such as constructivism, social cognitive theory, connectivism, and activity theory, within a CSCL lens, to build a theoretical foundation for future virtual reality/augmented reality educational frameworks. Several virtual reality/augmented reality examples for learning are explored, and several promising areas to further research, such as a greater focus on accessibility, the interplay between the physical and virtual environments, and suggestions for updated learning theory foundations, are proposed.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The design of immersive VR experiences (iVR) can be explored from several perspectives including but not limited to technical aspects necessary for the creation of the VR content, and the cognitively motivated design principles that are critical for creating user-friendly and efficient immersive experiences. To support learning and education through iVR, the later is crucial as effective learning cannot occur without a clear understanding of how human cognition and memory work, and how immersive experiences affect memory and cognition. As such, the embodied design of iVR, that adequately translates the knowledge of human cognition and memory into interaction mechanics, plays an important role in enhancing embodied immersive experiences in education and learning performances. The proposed research will investigate the role of two embodied affordances in enhancing embodied learning in iVR, specifically in terms of long-term retention of semantic knowledge: (1) Embodied Relative Reference Frame, and (2) Bodily Engagement.
Full-text available
Virtual reality (VR) offers unique opportunities for immersive activities previously not possible in the language classroom. However, as with any new instructional medium, it is difficult to employ these technologies effectively. There is often a gap between teachers' understanding of how to use the technology and the pedagogical needs of the classroom. This chapter introduces the VR Application Analysis Framework. The framework, supported by established theory, assists with the analysis and implementation of commercial off-the-shelf VR applications into language classroom tasks. This chapter explores the history of VR and the background for its potential use in the classroom. The four key aspects of the framework are presented: immersive capacity, cognitive load, purpose, and communicative capability. Four existing VR applications and their accompanying activities are presented as examples of using the framework.
Full-text available
Virtual reality and immersive technologies are used in a variety of learning and training applications. However, higher levels of immersion do not always improve learning. The mixed results in the literature may partly arise from the use of between-subjects designs, insufficient time intervals between sessions in within-subjects designs, and/or overreliance on binary comparisons of immersion levels. Our study examined the influence of three levels of audiovisual immersive technology on spatial learning in virtual environments, using a within-subjects design with long intersession intervals. Performance on object recognition and discrimination was improved in the highest immersion condition, whereas performance on directional bearings showed a U-shaped relationship with level of immersion. Examination of our data suggests that these results likely would not have been found had we used a between-subjects design or a binary comparison, thus demonstrating the value of our approach. Results suggest that different levels of immersion may be better suited to more or less cognitively complex types of spatial learning. We discuss challenges and opportunities for future work.
Full-text available
The theme selected for the 2019 EuroCALL conference held in Louvain-la-Neuve was ‘CALL and complexity’. As languages are known to be intrinsically and linguistically complex, as are the many determinants of learning (additional) languages, complexity is viewed as a challenge to be embraced collectively. The 2019 conference allowed us to pay tribute to providers of CALL solutions and to recognize the complexity of their task. We hope you will enjoy reading this volume as it offers a rich glimpse into the numerous debates that took place during EuroCALL 2019. We look forward to continuing those debates and discussions with you at the next EuroCALL conferences!
Full-text available
The emergence of new communications technologies in the 20th century opened up new avenues for sharing information and ideas. Traditional venues for information transfer such as the classroom can now incorporate technologies to expand the scope and sequence of communication beyond face-to-face contact hours. Distance education has leveraged new communications technologies to extend learning opportunities to new places and demographics. Distance education appears to be the future of instruction, but as of 2018 has only seen relatively minor adoption in the Japanese educational system. Some inherent weaknesses with technologies commonly used for online instruction may be the cause of this reception. However, technology continues to evolve and offer new, rich platforms for communication. Virtual reality (VR) allows users to enter and interact with virtual environments using their senses of sight, hearing, and touch. The affordances of VR may make up for the shortcomings of the current distance education model. This paper will explore the potential for VR as a tool in enhancing second language learning distance education, outlining some of its possible affordances and limitations.
Problem: Racism and bias are fundamental causes of health inequities, and they negatively affect the climate of academic medical institutions across the United States. Approach: In 2019, the Zucker School of Medicine and Northwell Health piloted a virtual reality (VR) racism experience as a component of professional development for medical school and health system leaders, faculty, and staff. Participants experienced a 60-minute, interactive, large-group session on microaggressions and, as individuals, a 20-minute VR module. These were followed by group reflection and debriefing. The sessions, developed in collaboration with a VR academic team, represented a response to institutional climate assessment surveys, which indicated the need for expanded professional training on cross-cultural communication and enhancing inclusion. Outcomes: In October 2019, 112 faculty and staff participated in the workshop. On a post-workshop survey, completed by 76 participants (67.9%), most respondents (90.8%) reported feeling engaged in the VR experience. Additionally, the majority agreed that VR was an effective tool for enhancing empathy (94.7%), that the session enhanced their own empathy for racial minorities (85.5%), and that their approach to communication would change (67.1%). In open-ended responses, participants frequently conveyed enthusiasm, powerful emotional and physiologic responses, and enhanced empathy. They also suggested more time for follow-up discussions. Next steps: Next steps include assessing the scalability of the VR module, determining effective complementary engagements, and measuring the module's longitudinal effects on racial empathy, discrimination, and institutional climate. As VR becomes more common in medical education, developing VR modules to address other forms of discrimination (e.g., sexism, homophobia) could also benefit the institutional climates of medical schools and health systems as academic medicine continues to build towards health equity.
VR technology allows learners to access simulated, immersive and interactive virtual environments to perform authentic learning activities. In particular, VR has emerged as a valuable tool for L2 learning. However, VR research has tended to pay more attention to desktop-based VR than to VR via mobile-rendered HMDs, leaving the potentials of VR through mobile-rendered HMDs yet to be investigated. Therefore, this study fills the gap by using a commercial VR app to examine the effect of VR via mobile-rendered HMDs on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Forty-nine seventh graders in Taiwan were recruited from two intact classes and assigned to either an experimental (VR players) or control (video watchers) group. The VR players interacted with Mondly VR app using mobile-rendered HMDs and took part in conversations with virtual characters. The video watchers watched the walkthrough video signal of the VR player’s app via a personal computer. Vocabulary tests, a perception questionnaire, and interviews were used to evaluate the participants’ vocabulary learning. The results showed that the VR players’ vocabulary learning and retention was significantly higher than the video watchers’. The majority of the VR players felt that VR-mediated vocabulary learning was motivating and beneficial. The VR app contextualized vocabulary learning by providing virtual environments with multimodal support and enhanced learner engagement through real-time interactivity and feedback. The video watchers’ feedback revealed mixed feelings. Some felt that the walkthrough video facilitated vocabulary learning by providing word meaning and use in context. Others reported it lacked interactivity and their attention was easily distracted.
Women in math, science, and engineering (MSE) often face stereotype threat: they fear that their performance in MSE will confirm an existing negative stereotype-that women are bad at math-which in turn may impair their learning and performance in math. This research investigated if sexist nonverbal behavior of a male instructor could activate stereotype threat among women in a virtual classroom. In addition, the research examined if learners' avatar representation in virtual reality altered this nonverbal process. Specifically, a 2 (avatar gender: female vs. male) × 2 (instructor behavior: dominant sexist vs. nondominant or nonsexist) between-subjects experiment was used. Data from 76 female college students demonstrated that participants learned less and performed worse when interacting with a sexist male instructor compared with a nonsexist instructor in a virtual classroom. Participants learned and performed equally well when represented by female and male avatars. Our findings extend previous research in physical learning settings, suggesting that dominant-sexist behaviors may give rise to stereotype threat and undermine women's learning outcomes in virtual classrooms. Implications for gender achievement gaps and stereotype threat are discussed.