View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Experimental Study on Reading in High-Immersion Virtual Reality

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Experimental Study on Reading in High-Immersion Virtual Reality
Language: English
Authors: Regina Kaplan-Rakowski, Alice Gruber
Source: British Journal of Educational Technology. 2024 55(2):541-559.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Computer Simulation, English (Second Language), English Language Learners, Second Language Learning, Reading Instruction, Reading Skills, Foreign Countries, Electronic Equipment, Technology Uses in Education, Video Technology, Reading Comprehension, Learner Engagement, Active Learning
Geographic Terms: Germany
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13392
ISSN: 0007-1013
1467-8535
Abstract: High-immersion virtual reality (VR) is an increasingly valued environment for language learners. Although reading constitutes a core language skill, practicing reading in VR has received little attention. In this between-subject, quantitative study, 79 intermediate learners of English at a German university were randomly assigned to view an interactive, multimedia-rich story under two conditions. In the experimental condition, subjects (the VR group) experienced the story using a high-immersion VR headset. In the comparison condition, subjects (the video group) watched a video recording (ie, screencast) of the same VR experience. In both conditions, the story was presented using identical captions in English, which served as the reading comprehension text. In addition to measuring the impact of VR on reading comprehension, validated questionnaires yielded data on the subjects' intrinsic motivation, sense of presence and cognitive load. The analysis produced several findings. First, t-tests revealed the VR group was associated with statistically significantly higher reading comprehension scores compared with the video group (p = 0.03). Second, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed that the VR treatment elicited statistically significantly higher levels of motivation (p [less than or equal to] 0.0001) and sense of presence (p [less than or equal to] 0.0001). Cognitive load was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.22). Our main implication is that VR can be beneficial for reading practice.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1411161
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGm2w39TCE-3UR0Xj25TzFjAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGoFWXDIRJCWlbRfKgIBEICBmw9kKRj6pu74xdHId9arbjaOmB8wMBrRraBZoqiU9XD3XaM4x4mchCabJPhpbnYcGplyJ0coiZEilM29vpSjSSTd1akindh_6QtN-MV4lxAYLY52X1rHe2h_4Xad5mTMYdrlUxze5WpXAAWyuf5AGiCjCXzWSMjXYYfL5AtEQDbszgfL3d1Aq6-gx_ru1UY_Pjcke-u5caF2_8Mc
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0175304964;58i01mar.24;2024Feb09.05:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0175304964-1">An experimental study on reading in high‐immersion virtual reality </title> <p>High‐immersion virtual reality (VR) is an increasingly valued environment for language learners. Although reading constitutes a core language skill, practicing reading in VR has received little attention. In this between‐subject, quantitative study, 79 intermediate learners of English at a German university were randomly assigned to view an interactive, multimedia‐rich story under two conditions. In the experimental condition, subjects (the VR group) experienced the story using a high‐immersion VR headset. In the comparison condition, subjects (the video group) watched a video recording (ie, screencast) of the same VR experience. In both conditions, the story was presented using identical captions in English, which served as the reading comprehension text. In addition to measuring the impact of VR on reading comprehension, validated questionnaires yielded data on the subjects' intrinsic motivation, sense of presence and cognitive load. The analysis produced several findings. First, t‐tests revealed the VR group was associated with statistically significantly higher reading comprehension scores compared with the video group (p = 0.03). Second, Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests showed that the VR treatment elicited statistically significantly higher levels of motivation (p ≤ 0.0001) and sense of presence (p ≤ 0.0001). Cognitive load was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.22). Our main implication is that VR can be beneficial for reading practice. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic High‐immersion virtual reality (VR) is engaging and motivational.Engaging students to practice reading is important.Research on practicing reading in VR has received little attention.What this paper adds It examines the effectiveness of using VR for practicing reading.It shows that VR enhances motivation and the sense of presence when reading.Students report equal levels of cognitive load while reading subtitles in VR and reading subtitles in videos.Implications for practice and/or policy Our main implication is that VR can be beneficial for reading practice.VR could be used as a motivational tool to engage students in reading activities.</p> <p>Keywords: cognitive load; foreign language learning; high‐immersion virtual reality (VR); motivation; reading comprehension; sense of presence</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Reading is a convoluted task, and reading in a foreign language (FL) is especially complex. Some linguistic challenges that FL learners typically confront while reading include the inability to infer the meaning from unfamiliar words and the overall context, complex orthography, insufficient vocabulary size and inadequate mastery of grammar (Shore & Sabatini, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref1">66</reflink>]). Some nonlinguistic challenges relate to affective barriers and include a lack of interest in the text itself or a lack of overall motivation to read (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref2">43</reflink>]). Our study addresses both linguistic and nonlinguistic challenges by exploring how using high‐immersion virtual reality (VR) impacts learners' reading comprehension, intrinsic motivation, sense of presence, and cognitive load.</p> <p>Traditionally, the process of reading has been associated with books, newspapers or any texts that are printed on paper. With technological advancements, digital options (eg, e‐books, texts on websites) have become increasingly available and can be beneficial in two ways. First, they can scaffold reading comprehension by enriching text with pictures, videos, and verbal and nonverbal sounds. Second, multimodal texts may be appealing to learners, thus motivating them to practice reading. Simultaneously, reading multimedia‐rich texts may cognitively overload learners.</p> <p>Various media that have been used for facilitating reading include e‐books (Hsieh & Huang, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]), videos (Tse et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref4">77</reflink>]), and digital games (Lämsä et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref5">37</reflink>]). Within the realm of immersive media, the use of augmented reality (AR) has gained attention (e.g., Bursali & Yilmaz, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>]; Ebadi & Ashrafabadi, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref7">14</reflink>]) and has shown particular promise (Ebadi & Ashrafabadi, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]). Although each medium has its merits, the rationale why VR‐based reading also deserves attention compared with other media is threefold.</p> <p>First, when reading, we usually create mental images of the text. This process makes the reading experience more engaging and may lead to better comprehension. Second, VR technology is more interactive compared with most multimedia. Users can manipulate virtual objects and engage with the environment in ways that are difficult while using other media. This interactivity keeps readers engaged, increasing their motivation to read. Third, VR offers novel, engaging and entertaining multimodal reading experiences, which can be particularly beneficial for reluctant readers.</p> <p>Due to the evolving nature of VR technology, the term "virtual reality" tends to be used inconsistently (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>]). Therefore, we put forward our definition of VR as "a computer‐generated 360° virtual space that can be perceived as being spatially realistic, due to the high immersion afforded by a head‐mounted device" (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>], p. 552). We stress the necessity of wearing the VR headset while experiencing VR to allow views from all directions (i.e., omnidirectional). This concept is referred to as "high‐immersion VR" as opposed to "low‐immersion VR" (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref11">27</reflink>]) because wearing a VR headset blocks users from the outside world, thus facilitating full immersion and the sense of presence (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref12">28</reflink>]). Low‐immersion VR takes place on a flat two‐dimensional (2D) monitor (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref13">27</reflink>]), making the experience more traditional and less immersive, with users not entirely immersed and more vulnerable to distraction by outside stimuli.</p> <p>Virtual reality is increasingly explored as a learning platform, and teachers have positive attitudes toward using VR in classrooms (Khukalenko et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref14">33</reflink>]), including foreign language settings (Kaplan‐Rakowski, Dhimolea, & Khukalenko, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref15">26</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski, Papin, & Hartwick, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref16">31</reflink>]). That positive attitude is understandable given the various VR affordances (e.g., sense of presence, immersion, empathy, usability, and embodiment; Shin, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref17">65</reflink>]) that may be attractive to learners although some excitement about VR may wear off (i.e., the novelty effect). In the context of our study, we specifically focus on and measure the sense of presence. Virtual reality is often characterized by extensive multimedia stimuli, allowing users to immerse themselves in omnidirectional experiences.</p> <p>This study is based on the cognitive‐affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL), which provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the relationship between cognitive and affective factors in VR‐based learning. The research reveals that VR enhances motivation and a sense of presence when reading without compromising cognitive load. The study suggests that incorporating VR into reading activities offers innovative opportunities for hesitant and enthusiastic language learners alike, potentially boosting motivation for reading, enhancing reading fluency, and transforming reading into a habit. The immersive nature of VR can also help concentration on reading tasks by eliminating distractions from external stimuli. The study offers practical insights for educational technology and language learning scholars to leverage VR in fostering reading engagement and learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-3">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175304964-4">High‐immersion VR and language learning</hd> <p>High‐immersion VR is an increasingly valued environment for language learners. Unsurprisingly, language scholars have investigated the potential of VR for facilitating virtual exchanges (Gruber et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]; Jauregi‐Ondarra et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>]), social interaction (Gruber & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>]; Li & Lan, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref21">42</reflink>]; Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref22">76</reflink>]), pragmatics (Taguchi, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref23">73</reflink>]), vocabulary learning (Alfadil, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref25">55</reflink>]) and one‐on‐one tutoring (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>]). Practicing various language skills in VR has also received attention, such as writing (Lan & Tam, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref27">38</reflink>]), speaking (Gruber & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref28">18</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>]; Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref30">75</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref31">76</reflink>]), and listening (Peixoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref32">57</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref33">80</reflink>]). As shown in a systematic review by Dhimolea et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref34">12</reflink>]), the number of VR‐assisted language learning (VRALL) studies has been growing. Even though reading is a core skill, the practice of reading in VR has received little attention (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>]; Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref36">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-5">Reading in VR</hd> <p>The shift from paper to digital reading has highlighted reading as an embodied practice in which the body is an integral part of the reading process in what is considered primarily a mental activity (Schilhab et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref37">63</reflink>]). Readers subconsciously use spatial representations provided by the reading interface and its surroundings to aid the encoding and decoding process. The body movements and interactions during reading operate alongside the decoding of the meaning of the text. Unlike print reading, 2D screen reading involves less tangibility while navigating the text (Schilhab et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref38">63</reflink>]). In contrast to other digital reading devices, VR offers advanced spatial representational capabilities (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although the process of reading in immersive media has received little attention (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]; Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref41">12</reflink>]), some initial research (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref42">19</reflink>]) has emerged. For example, Baceviciute et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref43">7</reflink>]) compared a real‐world reading condition with a VR‐reading condition. They found advantages of VR for knowledge transfer compared to real‐world reading but no differences for knowledge retention. The authors stressed the importance of including the VR capability of the user being embedded in the environment during the reading session. Embeddedness offers learners contextualized learning because they are situated within VR simulations. This notion is related to the sense of presence and the plausibility illusion, which promote higher immersion in a learning scenario (Gruber & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding cognitive load, Baceviciute et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref45">7</reflink>]) found that learners expended more cognitive effort as measured by electroencephalography (EEG) and that reading was less time efficient in VR compared with reading the same content in a real‐world condition. Similar findings were obtained in Rau et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref46">59</reflink>]), who explored differences in first language (L1) reading performance between VR and a low‐immersion desktop display as measured by a comprehension test. Subjects using VR had 10% longer response time compared with those experiencing the low‐immersion condition. As for affordances of reading in VR compared with other formats, Baceviciute et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref47">6</reflink>]) showed that written information formats in VR have advantages over processing auditory information formats in VR. Research into reading audiovisual content in a foreign language in VR in higher education is still scarce.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-6">Reading foreign text in VR</hd> <p>In our study, the terms "captioning" and "subtitling" are used interchangeably. Captioning is a multimodal input resource consisting of three input channels: the on‐screen text in a second language (L2), the visuals, and the background music (Winke et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref48">78</reflink>]). The combination of written texts with the auditory mode in non‐immersive contexts has been studied extensively (Agulló & Matamala, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>]; Gernsbacher, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref50">16</reflink>]). Captioning in VR has not received much attention, but some studies have examined different subtitle solutions in 360° videos (Rothe et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref51">60</reflink>]). Designing and implementing subtitles in an immersive environment poses special challenges because users can engage in a dynamic field of view and subtitling must not disrupt the immersive experience (Agulló & Matamala, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>]). Subtitles must be easily readable, and they must be designed with caution to avoid triggering VR sickness (Agulló & Matamala, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the context of VRALL, Acar and Cavas ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>]) conducted a between‐subject study of how VR impacts L2 reading skills. The study involved seventh graders, with the experimental group of 15 students reading text passages about planets in VR and the comparison group of 11 students processing similar texts using traditional formats (e.g., gap‐filling exercises, smart board exercises, teacher lectures). Achievement tests in this three‐week study reported significant gains of the VR group over the comparison group. Our study expands research by Acar and Cavas ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>]) by incorporating a larger sample size comprising higher education students, allowing for more robust calculations. To test differences between the experimental and comparison groups, we further applied a research design with more comparable linguistic, audial, and visual input.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-7">Theoretical foundation</hd> <p>The use of VR and video formats, combined with a textual input (i.e., the reading task), necessitates an overview of core cognitive theories such as multimedia learning (Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref56">49</reflink>]), dual coding (Paivio, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref57">54</reflink>]), and cognitive load (Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref58">71</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref59">72</reflink>]). These theories form the basis for understanding how different modalities and information formats can influence learning outcomes. Subsequently, we narrow down the focus to VR‐specific theoretical framework—CAMIL (Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref60">46</reflink>]), which provides a comprehensive model for understanding the interplay between affective (e.g., motivation) and cognitive (e.g., cognitive load) factors within the context of VR‐based learning experiences.</p> <p>Although text and image represent different sensory modes, they are both focal in the context of this study and, therefore, the Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref61">49</reflink>]) cognitive theory of multimedia learning can be applied (Albus et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>]). This theory proposes that learners presented with words and visual components learn more effectively than with words only. Learners construct their own knowledge, in that they choose and connect pieces of visual and verbal knowledge and process them in long‐term memory (Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref63">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref64">49</reflink>]). The dual‐coding theory emphasises the combination of visual and verbal representations to enhance learning and memory by creating meaningful associations (Paivio, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref65">54</reflink>]). Based on the dual‐coding theory, Mayer assumes that two different information systems are used to process verbal and pictorial data and that the separate mental models created for each would then be integrated into a single model (Albus et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref66">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Cognitive load theory is instrumental in understanding the demands of information processing (Chandler & Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref67">10</reflink>]; Leppink et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref68">41</reflink>]; Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref69">72</reflink>]). Educators consider this theory with the goal of making it optimally effective and efficient. Three types of cognitive load theory exist: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane. The intrinsic load refers to the inherent load of a learning task. The extraneous load is imposed by the design of the instruction, and the germane load is correlated with the learners' available cognitive resources for learning (Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref70">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>The goal of instructional designers is to devise instruction that would reduce the extraneous load that is typically associated with too much information, which impedes learning. The germane load is associated with advancing learning. If the same information is presented concurrently using two different channels (i.e., auditory and visual; Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref71">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref72">51</reflink>]), cognitive overload might occur. Consequently, learning is impeded due to a limited quantity of information that may be processed simultaneously in each channel (Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref73">72</reflink>]). In the case of captioned videos, three channels (audio, visual, and captioned text) complement each other because, according to the cognitive load theory, the three input sources could support each other's processing demands (Pattemore & Muñoz, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref74">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to the traditional cognitive theories driving the current study, a specific theoretical framework relevant to VR‐based research is the cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL) by Makransky and Petersen ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref75">46</reflink>]). This framework synthesises research on immersive educational experiences and identifies presence and agency as the psychological affordances of learning in VR. The model suggests that certain learning methods influence several affective and cognitive factors, including intrinsic motivation, cognitive load, and embodiment. CAMIL predicts how these factors relate to different learning outcomes.</p> <p>One of the main constructs driving studies on VR‐based learning is the sense of presence. Presence is "the illusion of being there, notwithstanding that you know for sure that you are not" (Slater, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref76">70</reflink>], p. 432). According to Slater ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref77">68</reflink>]), the sense of presence is triggered when high immersion in VR occurs. Learning and performance can be enhanced when experiencing the sense of presence (Gruber & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]; Witmer & Singer, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref79">79</reflink>]). Our study predominantly centres on this construct regarding its connection to language learning. While a subtle distinction between presence and immersion exists, we consider them interchangeable within the context of our research.</p> <p>Motivation can be viewed as an inner drive that enables learners to engage most effectively (Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref80">47</reflink>]). Intrinsic motivation is defined as engaging in an activity for its inherent pleasures, as opposed to external rewards (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref81">62</reflink>]). High‐immersive media trigger higher intrinsic motivation than less immersive media (e.g., Makransky & Lilleholt, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref82">44</reflink>]). Major alignments between students' engagement and motivation exist, and motivation is a catalyst for engagement, which is a behavioral outcome (Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref83">47</reflink>]). In high‐immersion VR, a higher sense of presence predicts a higher level of students' intrinsic motivation (Huang et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref84">21</reflink>]; Makransky & Lilleholt, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref85">44</reflink>]). In the context of reading tasks, the primary focus is on the content of a book or text, which stimulates readers' motivation and interest. These factors represent the essence of intrinsic motivation for reading. Conversely, the components introduced by VR, which supplement the content, can be considered extrinsic incentives.</p> <p>Considering the CAMIL model, the predictions regarding the learners' intrinsic motivation and cognitive load differences between the VR group and the video group in this study are only hypothetical but can still serve as a foundation for subsequent research. First, according to the CAMIL theory, certain learning methods can influence intrinsic motivation (Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref86">46</reflink>]). When comparing the VR group and the video group, it is likely that VR, offering more immersive and interactive experiences, would result in increased levels of intrinsic motivation. This may be because VR offers a sense of presence and high engagement, allowing learners to explore the VR environment and interact with the story elements more actively. CAMIL suggests that factors such as presence and interactivity may enhance learners' motivation (Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref87">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, with regard to predicting the difference between learners' cognitive load in the VR group and the video group, CAMIL theory posits that different learning approaches can influence cognitive load (Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref88">46</reflink>]). In the case of the VR group and the video group, the VR group is likely to experience higher cognitive load compared to the video group (see, for example, Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref89">7</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref90">55</reflink>]). Sensory‐rich VR environments often require additional mental processing to navigate and interact within the immersive environment. This increased cognitive load could be attributed to factors such as spatial processing, managing multiple sensory inputs, and manipulating objects in VR. Meanwhile, the video group may have a lower cognitive load as passively watching a pre‐recorded video requires less interactivity and cognitive demands. Altogether, these predictions align with the notion that VR provides a more immersive and engaging experience compared to more traditional video‐based instruction, and may impact both learners' motivation and cognitive load.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-8">Study purpose and research questions</hd> <p>Engagement in reading is crucial for promoting literacy and developing critical thinking skills (Shukri & Mukundan, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref91">67</reflink>]). However, many individuals struggle with reading due to boredom or distractions (Damrad‐Frye & Laird, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref92">11</reflink>]). Using VR may address this issue by creating more immersive and sensory‐rich reading experiences. While VR‐based learning is often associated with a high cognitive load (Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref93">55</reflink>]), recent research suggests that the benefits of engagement and presence in VR may outweigh this potential drawback. Theoretically, this indicates that the engagement and sense of presence in VR could counteract the cognitive load and help individuals better engage in reading. The premise here is that by highlighting the importance of presence and immersion in reading, educators can work toward creating more effective and engaging reading experiences that use VR technology.</p> <p>The theoretical foundations and the existing research accentuate the importance of exploring VR spaces to facilitate language learning. One of the identified research gaps is how reading comprehension tasks are processed in VR (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref94">12</reflink>]). We contribute to filling that gap by answering four research questions.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Research Question 1 (RQ1): <emph>Is there a difference in reading comprehension scores after participating in an interactive VR experience</emph> versus <emph>viewing the same content on a 2D monitor?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Research Question 2 (RQ2): <emph>To what extent does intrinsic motivation differ when experiencing VR</emph> content versus <emph>viewing the same content on a 2D monitor?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Research Question 3 (RQ3): <emph>To what extent does the sense of presence differ when experiencing VR</emph> content versus <emph>viewing the same content on a 2D monitor?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Research Question 4 (RQ4): <emph>Is there a difference in cognitive load when participating in an interactive VR experience</emph> versus <emph>viewing the same content on a 2D monitor?</emph></item> </ulist> <p>Four hypotheses address the research questions. Due to the limited empirical evidence on the effect of VR on reading comprehension, Hypothesis 1 posits that there will not be a significant difference in reading comprehension scores between participants who engage in an interactive VR experience and those who view the same content on a 2D monitor. Both Hypotheses 2 and 3 serve to confirm previous research. That is, Hypothesis 2 predicts that participants experiencing the content in VR will exhibit significantly higher levels of intrinsic motivation compared to those who view the same content on a 2D monitor. Likewise, Hypothesis 3 anticipates that the participants' sense of presence in the VR condition will be significantly greater than that experienced by participants viewing the content on a 2D monitor. Last, given that VR is rich in sensory stimuli, Hypothesis 4 postulates that participants engaging in the interactive VR experience will experience a significantly higher cognitive load compared to those who view the same content on a 2D monitor.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-9">METHODS</hd> <p>To assess the plausibility of the hypotheses, we conducted an experimental, quantitative, between‐subject study. We used Microsoft Excel and Statistical Analysis Software (SAS), version 9.4, in our statistical analyses. Parametric data were analyzed using independent <emph>t</emph>‐tests, and nonparametric data were analyzed using a series of Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests (Laerd Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref95">36</reflink>]; Sheskin, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref96">64</reflink>]). Control variables were language proficiency, age, gender, and previous VR experience, while dependent variables were scores measuring reading comprehension, intrinsic motivation, sense of presence, and cognitive load.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-10">Participants</hd> <p>Recruitment followed ethical guidelines, with volunteers solicited via newsletters and social media announcements at a public university in Germany. The recruitment resulted in 79 subjects (female = 35, male = 35, 9 = other/prefer not to say). By German educational standards, university students typically achieve B2 (upper intermediate) level of English when they leave high school aged 18 to 19. Our sample self‐reported their English level, which we verified using a validated instrument (see more details in section 3.4.; Lemhöfer & Broersma, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref97">40</reflink>]). The average age of our subjects was 23. According to EuroStat (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/), the sample was representative of the population of learners of English. The data were collected in the 2022 summer term for undergraduate and graduate students. No incentives were offered.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-11">Procedures</hd> <p>We started with a pilot study that helped refine our instruments and test the equipment used in our research. Prior to the experiment, the researcher instructed the VR group on how to use the VR headset and allowed them time to become familiar with the equipment. This pre‐training sought to diminish the novelty effect and to avoid technical issues. The researcher was available in case of technical difficulties.</p> <p>The intervention in both the VR and the video groups lasted up to 20 minutes. Both groups could hear the background music of the story. However, the narration was set to be barely audible to force the participants to rely on reading captions to follow the story. In the comparison condition, the researchers provided the participants with a video‐recorded version of the VR experience; that is, a screencast of the VR experience. The participants were instructed to focus on reading the captions. After the intervention, the students in both groups completed the instruments (see section 3.4. for a description of the instruments). (Figure 1).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01mar24/bjet13392-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13392-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Engaging in virtual reality intervention (Left) and video intervention (Right)." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175304964-13">Materials</hd> <p>The VR group used Oculus Quest 2, which is a stand‐alone VR headset with a haptic system allowing for interactivity. The equipment used for the video intervention consisted of a 2D desktop monitor connected to a computer.</p> <p>For the content of the experiment, the study used the Oculus VR app <emph>The Line</emph>, which presented users with an interactive love story embedded in a scale model of São Paulo, Brazil, set in the 1940s (see the video of the story here[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>]). Although set in Brazil, the entire story was in English and was narrated through the voice of the main character. For the purposes of the experiment, we set the narration to a very low volume to force the study participants to rely on reading captions. The captions were displayed within the user's field of view and were restricted to a maximum of two sentences at a time. The total number of words in the story was 883. Subject experts confirmed that the complexity of the text was suitable for intermediate English learners.</p> <p>To unfold the story, VR users needed to actively participate by manipulating knobs and switches, which made it interactive and also increased their sense of agency and control (Kong et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref99">34</reflink>]). The choice of the app was driven by its benefit of being linear and straightforward but still engaging. The story lasted around 20 minutes, which is an optimal length because much longer VR experiences are not recommended (Bailenson, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref100">8</reflink>]) and much shorter VR experiences may not offer sufficient chances for full immersion. The intrinsic cognitive load was deemed adequate for participants and was considered equal in both VR and the video story (Figure 2).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01mar24/bjet13392-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13392-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Screenshot of one of the scenes within The Line." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175304964-15">Instruments</hd> <p>All study instruments were reviewed by a panel of experts to ensure content validity. The study instruments were a reading comprehension test and questionnaires measuring intrinsic motivation, sense of presence, and cognitive load. Data on language proficiency levels and demographics were also collected. The instruments were completed immediately after the intervention. The overall testing took approximately 15 minutes. The instruments had two types of emphases. The first emphasis was linguistic and focused on reading comprehension outcomes. The second emphasis incorporated validated questionnaires yielding data on subjects' affective and cognitive measures such as intrinsic motivation, sense of presence, and cognitive load. The questionnaire concluded by eliciting demographic data and with inquiries about the test measuring English proficiency. A panel of two researchers was responsible for ensuring that the instruments met the validity and reliability standards. The third rater was available in case of disagreements. Interrater reliability was confirmed subsequent to the independent rating which took place until a minimum Cohen's <emph>K</emph> of 80% was reached (Lavrakas, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref101">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>The reading comprehension test consisted of 11 True/False questions, along with an option "not stated" to reduce the incentive to guess (Alderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref102">4</reflink>]). This format focused on how well subjects comprehended the written text. When generating the questions, the researchers ensured that the answers could not be inferred based upon the logic or the visual aspects of the story. Instead, to provide correct answers, the participants had to rely entirely on reading the captions. The participants received one point for each correct choice and zero points for each wrong or missing choice. Because we used pre‐established, objective scoring criteria, the interrater reliability reached 100%.</p> <p>The intrinsic motivation inventory is a popular inventory (eg, Plant & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref103">58</reflink>]; Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref104">61</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref105">62</reflink>]) that is used to elicit self‐reported levels of motivation when performing target activities. The assessed components include factors such as perceived competence, enjoyment, effort and value. This inventory consisted of nine items using a 5‐point Likert‐scale to seek an agreement on statements ranging from "not at all true," through "somewhat true," to "very true." The internal reliability of our items was excellent (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.92).</p> <p>The instrument measuring sense of presence was adapted from Gandolfi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref106">15</reflink>]) who reported this 5‐point Likert scale instrument to be reliable on both within‐person and between‐person scales. The validity was confirmed with interviews and subject behavior analysis. From the 21 original items, we selected nine that were most relevant in the context of our study and adapted them accordingly. For example, the original item "I felt immersed in the lesson" was modified to "I felt immersed in the VR story" because it was not the lesson, but the VR story that we used in our study. The reliability of the operationalized instrument was rated as "very good" (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.89).</p> <p>The cognitive load questions were based on an established instrument by Leppink et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref107">41</reflink>]) with high reliability (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.95). The original instrument contained 13 items, from which we adapted eight (three intrinsic items, three extraneous items and two germane items). The reliability of the operationalised instrument was "acceptable" (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.71). The section generating demographic information contained questions on gender, L1, level of English, VR previous experience and reading preferences.</p> <p>The study participants self‐reported their level of English, but we took an extra step to confirm homogeneity between the experimental and the comparison groups. To do that, we employed a standardised and validated test, LexTALE, developed by Lemhöfer and Broersma ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref108">40</reflink>]). This 60‐item test consisted of a lexical decision task (details available at: https://<ulink href="http://www.lextale.com/whatislextale.html">www.lextale.com/whatislextale.html</ulink>) measuring vocabulary and reading comprehension (Lemhöfer & Broersma, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref109">40</reflink>]). We chose this test for two reasons. The first reason was that it was an appropriate instrument for our context to evaluate our subjects' proficiency. The second reason was brevity. The LexTALE offers quick assessment and has been shown to be as valid as longer measures of English vocabulary knowledge and general English proficiency (Lemhöfer & Broersma, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref110">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-16">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175304964-17">Homogeneity of groups</hd> <p>Participants were assigned to groups using cluster randomization techniques (Dreyhaupt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref111">13</reflink>]). Although the random assignment of study participants to experimental and comparison groups helps distribute individual differences across the conditions (Isaac & Michael, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref112">22</reflink>]), we erred on the side of caution and followed with homogeneity tests. The number of subjects in each group varied (35 VR subjects and 44 video subjects) due to the convenience sample procedures. Our <emph>t</emph>‐tests and Wilcoxon tests did not require equal numbers of observations. A series of independent <emph>t</emph>‐tests confirmed no significant differences between the groups. The tested factors were gender (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref113">77</reflink>) = −0.67, <emph>p</emph> = 0.50), native language (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref114">77</reflink>) = 0.55, <emph>p</emph> = 0.58), and the level of English (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref115">77</reflink>) = 0.60, <emph>p</emph> = 0.64).</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-18">Research question 1</hd> <p>The goal of Research Question 1 was to establish whether a reading comprehension task was better facilitated using VR or video. We ran independent‐sample <emph>t</emph>‐tests to detect differences between the groups. The participants in the VR group received an average of 5.17 points (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.54 points) on the reading comprehension test, compared with 4.29 points (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.87 points) for the video comparison group, which makes the difference significantly different (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref116">77</reflink>) = −2.21, <emph>p</emph> = 0.03). The effect size value was medium (Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.50). Table 1 provides means, standard deviations, minimum values, and maximum values for each of the items.</p> <p>1 TABLE Descriptive statistics of the study constructs.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Construct</th><th align="left">VR (<italic>n</italic><sub>1</sub> = 35)</th><th align="left">Video (<italic>n</italic><sub>2</sub> = 44)</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Min</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Max</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Min</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Max</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Reading comprehension</td><td align="char" char=".">5.17</td><td align="char" char=".">1.54</td><td align="char" char=".">0.99</td><td align="char" char=".">8.03</td><td align="char" char=".">4.29</td><td align="char" char=".">1.87</td><td align="char" char=".">0.99</td><td align="char" char=".">8.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Intrinsic motivation</td><td align="char" char=".">4.50</td><td align="char" char=".">0.59</td><td align="char" char=".">2.14</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">3.12</td><td align="char" char=".">0.79</td><td align="char" char=".">1.57</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sense of presence</td><td align="char" char=".">3.39</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.67</td><td align="char" char=".">2.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.59</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cognitive load</td><td align="char" char=".">3.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.98</td><td align="char" char=".">0.50</td><td align="char" char=".">5.50</td><td align="char" char=".">3.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.98</td><td align="char" char=".">1.25</td><td align="char" char=".">5.62</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Score ranges were 0 to 11 for reading comprehension, 1 to 5 for intrinsic motivation, 1 to 5 for sense of presence, and 1 to 6 for cognitive load.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-19">Research question 2</hd> <p>Research Question 2 required us to test differences between the groups with regard to intrinsic motivation. Table 1 shows that average motivation was higher for the VR group compared to the video group. A Wilcoxon signed‐rank test showed that the difference in motivation was significant (<emph>Z</emph> = 6.33, <emph>p</emph> ≤ 0.0001). The effect size was very high (Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 1.94).</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-20">Research question 3</hd> <p>Testing the differences in the levels of sense of presence was motivated by Research Question 3. Table 1 shows that the VR average score of 3.39 points (out of 5 possible points) was higher than the video group's average presence score of 2.20 points. This effect size was very high (Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 1.76). A Wilcoxon signed‐rank test confirmed that the VR group experienced a statistically significantly higher sense of presence than the video group (<emph>Z</emph> = 5.97, <emph>p</emph> ≤ 0.0001).</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-21">Research question 4</hd> <p>To answer Research Question 4, we tested differences between groups with regard to cognitive load. The VR group scored 3.15 on average, while the video group was slightly lower at 3.02 (out of 6 possible points). The Wilcoxon signed‐rank test (<emph>Z</emph> = 0.76, <emph>p</emph> = 0.22) was insignificant between the VR and video groups. The effect size was small (Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.13).</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-22">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The goal of this study was to explore whether VR can enhance language learners' reading skills. Our study yielded four main findings: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>) reading in VR yielded significantly higher reading comprehension scores compared to the video comparison condition, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref118">2</reflink>) learners reading in VR received significantly higher scores on motivation compared to learners viewing video, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref119">3</reflink>) learners experienced a significantly higher sense of presence when reading in VR than with video and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref120">4</reflink>) cognitive load was not compromised when reading in VR.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-23">Reading in VR facilitates reading comprehension</hd> <p>In this study, VR and video interventions were designed to be nearly identical; that is, participants in both groups were exposed to the same story, graphics, target text, background music and so forth. The one differing factor was the medium through which the groups experienced the intervention. The VR group significantly outperformed the video group on reading comprehension scores. This outcome was predicted due to a lack of sufficient prior research. This finding suggests that at least one of the VR affordances, that is, immersion, presence, empathy, usability, or embodiment (Shin, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref121">65</reflink>]), likely benefited the learners. Because clearly pointing to one of those affordances is beyond the scope of our study, we treat VR holistically, interpreting the entire omnidirectional experience (as opposed to lack thereof when viewing a video) as driving immersion in the process of reading.</p> <p>Our finding is unique because previous research on reading comprehension in VR is narrowly focused. The closest study to ours is Baceviciute et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref122">7</reflink>]), which found that reading in VR can be effective for retention. However, Baceviciute et al. did not use VR to its full capacity. That is, the main characteristic of VR is that it is 360‐degree, but the subjects in Baceviciute et al. were facing the reading text without taking advantage of the fully omnidirectional VR, limiting the immersion and potential presence of the VR experience. Our study explored more of the potential of VR by allowing users to turn around and still read the text even when facing away from the main scene. Said differently, our experiment allowed for taking advantage of immersion in VR, as opposed to taking advantage only of the forward‐looking VR display. In the context of language learning, our findings were similar to Acar and Cavas ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref123">1</reflink>]). However, that study employed a pre‐posttest design and lacked a control group, making its contribution solely exploratory.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-24">Learners are highly motivated while reading in VR</hd> <p>This research question has been partially answered in Kaplan‐Rakowski and Gruber ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref124">19</reflink>]) based on the preliminary analysis, The study participants reported significantly higher levels of intrinsic motivation when using VR, which confirmed our hypothesis. Similar findings have been reported in a systematic review of VRALL studies by Dhimolea et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref125">12</reflink>]), which showed that in most VR studies students express positive experiences learning languages in VR, revealing high engagement, excitement (Alfadil, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref126">5</reflink>]), and interest (Pack et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref127">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>For example, language learners reported VR as highly motivating and engaging when they interacted with virtual agents in VR to practice communicative skills (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Wojdynski, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref128">32</reflink>]). Language learners' high motivation and engagement in VR were also detected in studies exploring how VR can help language learners cope with foreign language speaking anxiety (Gruber & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref129">18</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref130">29</reflink>]; Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref131">75</reflink>]). Despite being put under the pressure of having to speak in public in a foreign language, VR participants consistently maintained their motivation (Gruber & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref132">18</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref133">29</reflink>]; Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref134">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>Most previous VRALL studies focused on several language domains but did not highlight practicing reading skills (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref135">12</reflink>]). Our study contributes to a better understanding of reading in VR by providing useful evidence that VR is highly motivating and effective for learners engaged in reading. This finding may be explained by the sense of agency that VR offers (Kong et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref136">34</reflink>]), as learners need to physically engage to progress through the story. Conversely, viewing videos lacks the same VR affordances and, therefore, reading captions on a 2D screen might be less motivating.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-25">Learners have a high sense of presence when reading in VR</hd> <p>Our other finding was that the VR group had significantly higher sense of presence scores compared with the video group, thus supporting our hypothesis. Virtual reality can teleport users to various places, and it facilitates a sense of presence. Therefore, the popularity of virtual trips and expeditions and their positive longitudinal effects on learning have been growing (eg, Makransky & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref137">45</reflink>]; Zhao et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref138">81</reflink>]).</p> <p>In line with our finding, language learners who practiced public speaking in VR also reported having a sense of presence (Gruber & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref139">18</reflink>]). Although those learners knew that their VR audience, that is, the virtual agents were not real, the learners behaved as if the audience were real. This concept is known as the "plausibility illusion" and is often reported in the literature on VR (Slater, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref140">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>In another study, listening comprehension in VR with language learners showed that a strong sense of presence helped students in the listening process (Tai & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref141">74</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref142">80</reflink>]). Sense of presence ensures the activation of long‐term memory and subsequent learning (Ladendorf et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref143">35</reflink>]). Similarly, our study indicates a potential relationship between reading comprehension and the sense of presence.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-26">Cognitive load is not compromised when reading in VR</hd> <p>Our study found that the cognitive load of the VR and video groups differed insignificantly. This interesting finding contradicted our hypothesis based on previous research which warned against the risk of VR taxing cognitive resources excessively. That is, VR is a high‐stimuli platform, and the richness of the auditory and the visual input embedded in the omnidirectional scenery may be overwhelming.</p> <p>Our finding is inconsistent with Papin and Kaplan‐Rakowski ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref144">55</reflink>]), who suggested that high‐immersion VR can impede learning and proposed that this negative effect was due to cognitive overload taking place when engaging in VR. The study subjects needed to learn vocabulary annotated in 360° pictures viewed using high‐immersion VR (compared with a 2D monitor and PowerPoint). Our findings may be different from Papin and Kaplan‐Rakowski ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref145">55</reflink>]) because our subjects could enjoy the VR experience without having to focus on memorizing and recalling new vocabulary embedded in VR, which is a task that is typically highly cognitively charging. It is plausible that the story in our study, and especially its VR interactivity, boosted intrinsic motivation. The learning content in Papin and Kaplan‐Rakowski ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref146">55</reflink>]) was not embedded within a story, instead 360‐degree pictures were annotated with the target vocabulary; the lack of a storyline may have caused that difference in the levels of cognitive load.</p> <p>Baceviciute et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref147">7</reflink>]) used EEG to measure cognitive efforts and found that reading in VR is cognitively overloading, therefore aligning with the findings in Papin and Kaplan‐Rakowski ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref148">55</reflink>]) but not with ours. Such a discrepancy of findings could be explained by EEG being a measure of cognitive load, which is admittedly more objective. In our study, we used self‐reported cognitive load measures, which showed how the participants perceived their cognitive engagement. Assumingly, our participants did not feel that the VR activity was overwhelming. Perhaps, again, the cognitive load depended on the target task. As opposed to Baceviciute et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref149">7</reflink>]), with subjects who had to recall specific information and with an experiment that did not take full advantage of the VR omnidirectional setting (as proposed in the discussion of Research Question 1), our subjects were exposed to an enjoyable VR story and the 360° environment helped the learners diminish perceiving cognitive engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-27">Practical and theoretical implications</hd> <p>Several pedagogical implications can be derived based on the findings of this study. For instance, the use of VR in reading activities presents both hesitant and enthusiastic language learners with innovative opportunities for reading within a multimedia environment. If educators can hook students with reading activities in VR, students' motivation for reading may increase. However, educators need to be aware that VR design impacts learning, and the choice of VR apps can make a difference with regard to learning outcomes.</p> <p>Reading in VR has the potential to shape positive attitudes toward reading and support students' reading fluency. It can also facilitate the process of making reading a habit instead of a chore. Implementing reading activities in VR offers hard‐of‐hearing and deaf students a new, enriched multimedia learning environment.</p> <p>Jang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref150">23</reflink>]) encourage educators to include digital literacy reading activities by using, for instance, multimedia and technology tools in teaching reading. Similarly, we suggest implementing reading activities in the most immersive environment known thus far, namely, VR. Educators should include tasks based on students' interests and design post‐reading quizzes to give students reassurances on their reading progress (Milliner, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref151">52</reflink>]). Classroom reading tasks in VR may be an incentive for learners to pursue VR reading activities for recreational purposes in an informal, outside classroom context. Consequently, time spent on reading may increase considerably. A distinct advantage of reading activities in VR compared with using a 2D monitor is that the VR environment facilitates focusing on the reading task. Wearing a VR headset prevents users from getting distracted by external stimuli, such as when simultaneously using other electronic devices or interacting with people or objects in the real world.</p> <p>In addition to practical implications, the findings from this study align with the emphasis of the CAMIL theory on the impact of immersion and presence on learning experiences, as the scores of the sense of presence and motivation of the VR group were significantly higher than those of the video group. The study also touches on factors identified in the CAMIL theory, such as cognitive load, which did not significantly differ between the VR and video groups. Altogether, our study provides an exploratory indication of the benefits of using VR in reading practice and supports the theoretical framework of CAMIL for immersive learning.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-28">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>Our study had several limitations. First, the results may have been influenced by a novelty effect, which happens when learners are exposed to new, cutting‐edge technology, making them excited to use a new tool, perhaps simultaneously associating the learning content with the excitement. We offered our subjects a pre‐training session with the goal of diminishing the novelty effect, but one such session may have been insufficient. The novelty effect has been typical in immersive learning environments outside of VR (e.g., Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref152">25</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref153">30</reflink>]) and is prone to wear off after several exposures to the new technology when the learners have grown accustomed to it. Future research should ensure repeated exposure to immersive technologies (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref154">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, although we conservatively aimed at a one‐time intervention study to avoid the uncontrolled influence of extraneous variables, we recognise that such a study makes the findings less generalisable. Future research should consider extended exposures to VR and should be based on more diverse sample and experiment content to increase the validity of the study. Measuring participants' behaviour, reactions, expectations and attitudes could further enrich forthcoming research.</p> <p>Third, the goal of our design was to expose the two groups to the identical learning content with the same time allotment but presented in two different formats (VR and video). Because of this necessary control, our participants lacked freedom to rewind, fast‐forward, or pause the story. In an ecologically sound testing environment, the participants should have such freedom and follow‐up studies should consider such flexibility.</p> <p>Fourth, to test our participants' levels of motivation, sense of presence, and cognitive load, we used self‐reported questionnaires. As such, some bias and volatility could have been introduced. With the advances of biometric devices that can detect emotions, future research should consider measuring physiological responses such as heart rate, epidermal activity, pulse, or body temperature. Such measures could be coupled with measures of aptitude, or personality, to enrich the data with psychometrical properties.</p> <p>Fifth, our measure of reliability of cognitive load regarding Cronbach levels was "acceptable", however, a higher reliability level would provide more confidence in the study findings. That is, replications of this study would be desirable. In addition to implementing qualitative components to the study design, future studies could use more complex statistical models including factor analysis, analysis encompassing covariates to strengthen internal validity, or structural equation modelling (SEM) to analyse the relationships of observed and latent variables.</p> <p>Further research is needed to investigate the impact of different levels of interaction and immersion in terms of different sensory‐motor affordances and their impact on cognitive load and reading comprehension. In educational contexts with additional language learners, using captions in different formats (eg, with and without highlighted keywords, keyword‐only captions) and their effect on reading comprehension in VR should be explored.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-29">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>This study set out to explore the potential differences in various factors, such as reading comprehension, intrinsic motivation, sense of presence and cognitive load between language learners who read an interactive story using a VR headset and learners who read the same story displayed in a 2D video. Overall, VR was found to be a viable platform for enhancing language learners' reading skills. This study is the first to provide evidence of how language learners can use VR for reading. We found that students using VR had scores that were significantly higher than students viewing the same story in a video format. The students using VR also expressed significantly higher levels of motivation and sense of presence. Meanwhile, the self‐reported cognitive load of the VR group was no different from the video group. What these findings show is that VR has a potential to be used for reading practice. VR reading practice tasks can highly engage students in an activity that is not necessarily considered absorbing. Although our study provided strong results promoting the use of VR, we encourage further research investigating other contexts that may aid or impede language learning. This study is a foundation for future research of VRALL and in domains where reading texts is fundamental.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-30">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the students who participated in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-31">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not‐for‐profit sectors.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-32">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-33">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0175304964-34">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>The recruitment and data collection followed standard procedures ensuring ethical conduct of the study. All the data were anonymised. All the data have been kept on the university's password‐protected drive.</p> <ref id="AN0175304964-35"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref54" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Note: During the experiment, the narration was intentionally set to a very low volume. However, in this article, we have provided the narration at full volume to ensure that our readers have access to the complete version of the story.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0175304964-36"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Acar, A., & Cavas, B. (2020). The effect of virtual reality enhanced learning environment on the 7th‐grade students' reading and writing skills in English. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8 (4), 22 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref49" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Agulló, B., & Matamala, A. (2020). Subtitles in virtual reality: Guidelines for the integration of subtitles in 360° content. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 25 (3), 643 – 661. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v25n03a03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref62" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Albus, P., Vogt, A., & Seufert, T. (2021). Signaling in virtual reality influences learning outcome and cognitive load. Computers & Education, 166, 104154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref102" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alderson, C. J., Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., Wall, D., & Swan, M. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref24" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Alfadil, M. (2020). Effectiveness of virtual reality game in foreign language vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education, 153, 103893.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref47" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baceviciute, S., Mottelson, A., Terkildsen, T., & Makranksy, G. (2020). Investigating representation of text and audio in educational VR using learning outcomes and EEG. In CHI2020: ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Digital Library.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref35" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baceviciute, S., Terkildsen, T., & Makransky, G. (2021). Remediating learning from non‐immersive to immersive media: Using EEG to investigate the effects of environmental embeddedness on reading in virtual reality. Computers & Education, 164, 104122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref100" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bailenson, J. (2018). Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how it works, and what it can do. WW Norton & Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bursali, H., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2019). Effect of augmented reality applications on secondary school students' reading comprehension and learning permanency. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 126 – 135.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8 (4), 293 – 332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damrad‐Frye, R., & Laird, J. D. (1989). The experience of boredom: The role of the self‐perception of attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (2), 315 – 320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dhimolea, T. K., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Lin, L. (2022). A systematic review of virtual reality language learning. TechTrends, 66, 810 – 824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528‐022‐00717‐w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dreyhaupt, J., Mayer, B., Keis, O., Öchsner, W., & Muche, R. (2017). Cluster‐randomized studies in educational research: Principles and methodological aspects. GMS Journal for Medical Education, 34 (2), 1 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ebadi, S., & Ashrafabadi, F. (2022). An exploration into the impact of augmented reality on EFL learners' Reading comprehension. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (7), 9745 – 9765.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gandolfi, E., Kosko, K. W., & Ferdig, R. E. (2021). Situating presence within extended reality for teacher training: Validation of the extended reality presence scale (XRPS) in preservice teacher use of immersive 360 video. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (2), 824 – 841.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gernsbacher, M. A. (2015). Video captions benefit everyone. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 195 – 202.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruber, A., Canto, S., & Jauregi Ondarra, K. (2023). Exploring the use of social virtual reality for virtual exchange. ReCALL, 35, 1 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruber, A., & Kaplan‐Rakowski, R. (2020). User experience of virtual reality public speaking practice. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive and affective perspectives on immersive technology in education (pp. 235 – 249). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978‐1‐7998‐3250‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruber, A., & Kaplan‐Rakowski, R. (2022). Verbal and nonverbal communication in high‐immersion virtual reality for language learners. In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. Bédi, L. Bradley, K. Friðriksdóttir, H. Garðarsdóttir, S. Thouësny, & M. J. Whelpton (Eds.), Intelligent CALL, granular systems, and learner data: Short papers from EUROCALL 2022 (pp. 129 – 134). Research‐Publishing. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.61.1447</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsieh, Y., & Huang, S. (2020). Using an E‐book in the secondary English classroom: Effects on EFL reading and listening. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 1285 – 1301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, W., Roscoe, R. D., Johnson‐Glenberg, M. C., & Craig, S. D. (2021). Motivation, engagement, and performance across multiple virtual reality sessions and levels of immersion. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37 (3), 745 – 758.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation: A collection of principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and evaluation of studies in education and the behavioral sciences. Edits Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jang, B. G., Ryoo, J. H., & Smith, K. C. (2021). Latent profiles of attitudes toward print and digital reading among adolescents. Reading and Writing, 34 (5), 1115 – 1139.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jauregi‐Ondarra, K., Gruber, A., & Canto, S. (2021). Pedagogical experiences in a virtual exchange project using high‐immersion virtual reality for intercultural language learning. In N. Zoghlami, C. Brudermann, C. Sarré, M. Grosbois, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL and professionalisation: Short papers from EUROCALL 2021 (pp. 155 – 160). Research‐publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2021.54.1325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R. (2019). The effect of stereoscopic three‐dimensional images on vocabulary learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10 (4), 324 – 337. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.634172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Dhimolea, T. K., & Khukalenko, I. (2023). Language teachers' beliefs about using immersive virtual reality. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐023‐11686‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Gruber, A. (2019). Low‐immersion versus high‐immersion virtual reality: Definitions, classification, and examples with a foreign language focus. In Innovation in Language Learning Conference Proceedings 2019 (pp. 552 – 555). Filodiritto Publisher.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Gruber, A. (2021). One‐on‐one foreign language speaking practice in high‐immersion virtual reality. In Y. J. Lan & S. Grant (Eds.), Contextual language learning—Real language learning on the continuum from virtuality to reality (pp. 187 – 202). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐16‐3416‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Gruber, A. (2023). The impact of high‐immersion virtual reality on foreign language anxiety. Smart Learning Environments. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3882215</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Lin, L., & Wojdynski, T. (2022). Learning vocabulary using 2D pictures is more effective than using immersive 3D stereoscopic pictures. International Journal of Human‐Computer Interaction, 38 (4), 299 – 308. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1938394</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Papin, K., & Hartwick, P. (2023). Language teachers' perceptions and use of extended reality. CALICO Journal, 40 (1), 1 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Wojdynski, T. (2018). Students' attitudes towards high‐immersion virtual reality assisted language learning. In P. Taalas, J. Jalkanen, L. Bradley, & S. Thouёsny (Eds.), Future‐proof CALL: Language learning as exploration and encounters—Short papers from EUROCALL 2018 (pp. 124 – 129). Research‐publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.26.824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khukalenko, I., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., An, Y., & Iushina, V. (2022). Teachers' perceptions of using virtual reality technology in classrooms: A large‐scale survey. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐022‐11061‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kong, G., He, K., & Wei, K. (2017). Sensorimotor experience in virtual reality enhances sense of agency associated with an avatar. Consciousness and Cognition, 52, 115 – 124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladendorf, K., Schneider, D., & Xie, Y. (2019). Mobile‐based virtual reality: Why and how does it support learning? In A. Zhang & D. Cristol (Eds.), Handbook of mobile teaching and learning (pp. 1 – 19). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laerd Statistics. (2015). Wilcoxon signed‐rank test using SPSS statistics. Statistical tutorials and software guides. Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lämsä, J., Hämäläinen, R., Aro, M., Koskimaa, R., & Äyrämö, S. M. (2018). Games for enhancing basic reading and maths skills: A systematic review of educational game design in supporting learning by people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49 (4), 596 – 607.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lan, Y. J., & Tam, V. T. T. (2022). The impact of 360° videos on basic Chinese writing: A preliminary exploration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71, 539 – 560.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325 – 343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van Gog, T., van Der Vleuten, C. P., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, P., & Lan, Y.‐. J. (2021). Digital language learning (DLL): Insights from behavior, cognition, and the brain. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25 (3), 361 – 378. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000353.ss</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, T. Y., Tan, T. H., & Chu, Y. L. (2008). QR code and augmented reality‐supported mobile English learning system. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on Mobile multimedia processing (pp. 37 – 52). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky, G., & Lilleholt, L. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66 (5), 1141 – 1164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky, G., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). Benefits of taking a virtual field trip in immersive virtual reality: Evidence for the immersion principle in multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 1 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research‐based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (3), 937 – 958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐020‐09586‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, A. J., Ginns, P., & Papworth, B. (2017). Motivation and engagement: Same or different? Does it matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 150 – 162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32 (1), 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31 – 48). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milliner, B. (2021). Stories of avid extensive readers in a university‐level EFL course. Journal of Extensive Reading, 8 (1), 1 – 16. https://jalt‐publications.org/content/index.php/jer/issue/view/10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pack, A., Barrett, A., Liang, H., & Monteiro, D. V. (2020). University EAP students' perceptions of using a prototype virtual reality learning environment to learn writing structure. International Journal of Computer‐Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 10 (1), 27 – 46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45 (3), 255 – 287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papin, K., & Kaplan‐Rakowski, R. (2022). A study on vocabulary learning using immersive 360° pictures. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35, 1 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2068613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pattemore, A., & Muñoz, C. (2020). Learning L2 constructions from captioned audio‐visual exposure: The effect of learner‐related factors. System, 93, 102303.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peixoto, B., Pinto, D., Krassmann, A., Melo, M., Cabral, L., & Bessa, M. (2019). Using virtual reality tools for teaching foreign languages. In New knowledge in information systems and technologies: Volume 3 (pp. 581 – 588). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self‐consciousness, self‐awareness, and ego‐involvement: An investigation of internally‐controlling styles. Journal of Personality, 53, 435 – 449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6494.1985.tb00375.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rau, P. L., Zheng, J., Guo, Z., & Li, J. (2018). Speed reading on virtual reality and augmented reality. Computers & Education, 125, 240 – 245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothe, S., Tran, K., & Hußmann, H. (2018). Dynamic subtitles in cinematic virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM international conference on interactive experiences for TV and online video (pp. 209 – 214). ACM Digital Library.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (3), 450 – 461.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schilhab, T., Ballig, G., & Kuzmicova, A. (2018). Decreased materiality from print to screen reading. First Monday, 23 (10), 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheskin, D. J. (2011). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures (5th ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, D. H. (2017). The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telematics and Informatics, 34 (8), 1826 – 1836.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shore, J. R., & Sabatini, J. (2009). English language learners with reading disabilities: A review of the literature and the foundation for a research agenda. ETS Research Report Series, 2009 (1), 1 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shukri, N. A., & Mukundan, J. (2015). A review on developing critical thinking skills through literary texts. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6 (2), 4 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, M. (2003). A note on presence terminology. Presence Connect, 3 (3), 1 – 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364 (1535), 3549 – 3557.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, M. (2018). Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. British Journal of Psychology, 109 (3), 431 – 433.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐010‐9128‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (pp. 37 – 76). Elsevier Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taguchi, N. (2021). Application of immersive virtual reality to pragmatics data collection methods: Insights from interviews. Calico Journal, 38 (2), 181 – 201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tai, T.‐Y., & Chen, H. H.‐J. (2021). The impact of immersive virtual reality on EFL learners' listening comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59 (7), 1272 – 1293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121994291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thrasher, T. (2022). The impact of virtual reality on L2 French learners' language anxiety and oral comprehensibility: An exploratory study. CALICO Journal, 39 (2), 219 – 238.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thrasher, T. (2023). Meeting in the Metaverse: Language learners' insights into the affordances of virtual reality. In D. Cockerham, R. Kaplan‐Rakowski, W. Foshey, & M. J. Spector (Eds.), Reimagining education: Studies and stories for effective learning in an evolving digital environment (pp. 179 – 194). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tse, W. S., Choi, L. Y., & Tang, W. S. (2019). Effects of video‐based flipped class instruction on subject reading motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (1), 385 – 398.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2010). The effects of captioning videos used for foreign language listening activities. Language Learning & Technology, 14 (1), 65 – 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7 (3), 225 – 240.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ye, Y., & Kaplan‐Rakowski, R. (2023). Practicing listening comprehension skills in high‐immersion virtual reality. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335690</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao, J., Wallgrün, J. O., Sajjadi, P., LaFemina, P., Lim, K. Y., Springer, J. P., & Klippel, A. (2022). Longitudinal effects in the effectiveness of educational virtual field trips. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60 (4), 1008 – 1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211062925</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Regina Kaplan‐Rakowski and Alice Gruber</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref153"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1411161
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Experimental Study on Reading in High-Immersion Virtual Reality
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Regina+Kaplan-Rakowski%22">Regina Kaplan-Rakowski</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alice+Gruber%22">Alice Gruber</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Technology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Technology</i></searchLink>. 2024 55(2):541-559.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Simulation%22">Computer Simulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Language+Learners%22">English Language Learners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Equipment%22">Electronic Equipment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjet.13392
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-1013<br />1467-8535
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: High-immersion virtual reality (VR) is an increasingly valued environment for language learners. Although reading constitutes a core language skill, practicing reading in VR has received little attention. In this between-subject, quantitative study, 79 intermediate learners of English at a German university were randomly assigned to view an interactive, multimedia-rich story under two conditions. In the experimental condition, subjects (the VR group) experienced the story using a high-immersion VR headset. In the comparison condition, subjects (the video group) watched a video recording (ie, screencast) of the same VR experience. In both conditions, the story was presented using identical captions in English, which served as the reading comprehension text. In addition to measuring the impact of VR on reading comprehension, validated questionnaires yielded data on the subjects' intrinsic motivation, sense of presence and cognitive load. The analysis produced several findings. First, t-tests revealed the VR group was associated with statistically significantly higher reading comprehension scores compared with the video group (p = 0.03). Second, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed that the VR treatment elicited statistically significantly higher levels of motivation (p [less than or equal to] 0.0001) and sense of presence (p [less than or equal to] 0.0001). Cognitive load was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.22). Our main implication is that VR can be beneficial for reading practice.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1411161
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1411161
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjet.13392
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 541
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Computer Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Language Learners
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Electronic Equipment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Experimental Study on Reading in High-Immersion Virtual Reality
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Regina Kaplan-Rakowski
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alice Gruber
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-1013
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-8535
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 55
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1