View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Exploratory Study on Practising Listening Comprehension Skills in High-Immersion Virtual Reality

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Exploratory Study on Practising Listening Comprehension Skills in High-Immersion Virtual Reality
Language: English
Authors: Yongluan Ye, Regina Kaplan-Rakowski (ORCID 0000-0002-6769-7784)
Source: British Journal of Educational Technology. 2024 55(4):1651-1672.
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: 22
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Computer Simulation, Chinese, Second Language Learning, Technology Uses in Education, Listening Comprehension, Psychological Patterns, Cognitive Processes, Difficulty Level, Video Technology, Skill Development, Program Effectiveness
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13481
ISSN: 0007-1013
1467-8535
Abstract: Holding learners' attention is challenging, especially when they are asked to listen to long passages. High-immersion virtual reality (VR) can immerse learners in listening tasks, even in such complex languages as Chinese. This exploratory study examined the effect of VR on 43 Chinese language learners' listening comprehension, enjoyment, sense of presence, and cognitive load. Participants were self-selected into two groups without knowing the purpose of the study or the details of their activity. The experimental group (n[subscript 1] = 23) experienced an interactive multimedia story in VR, and the comparison group (n[subscript 2] = 20) watched a screencast video recording of the same story. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) indicated that VR may have a positive effect on the development of listening skills. Compared with the video group, the VR group had significantly higher listening comprehension scores, reported significantly more enjoyment and sense of presence, and reported experiencing less cognitive load. Thus, the findings suggest that VR could be used as a pedagogical tool to enhance foreign language listening skills.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1427261
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE9VgrJQcbogBOAhcvhzciAAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCd0HKiS4oIK3HYnzQIBEICBm8gTBkdaDLdBtNHUpb3eO_9ZvCvuCGEntfLizTR3l6b7mpqKNzusUsKetiz7qQrCHQm8Uj5zcjoYMuE9njuWmJRtLkDqgaD_zvzFS3IdW-gcGP736sF_8_btsNUMfA3xJnftRPRtswMHF86YojkAgIKpT9cNkOt4AFiIGzk90PiH-9rnwBMqlD2vyZC1iVr0DkugNbkGtV6Sq4Xq
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177678297;58i01jul.24;2024Jun07.07:07;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177678297-1">An exploratory study on practising listening comprehension skills in high‐immersion virtual reality </title> <p>Holding learners' attention is challenging, especially when they are asked to listen to long passages. High‐immersion virtual reality (VR) can immerse learners in listening tasks, even in such complex languages as Chinese. This exploratory study examined the effect of VR on 43 Chinese language learners' listening comprehension, enjoyment, sense of presence, and cognitive load. Participants were self‐selected into two groups without knowing the purpose of the study or the details of their activity. The experimental group (n1 = 23) experienced an interactive multimedia story in VR, and the comparison group (n2 = 20) watched a screencast video recording of the same story. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) indicated that VR may have a positive effect on the development of listening skills. Compared with the video group, the VR group had significantly higher listening comprehension scores, reported significantly more enjoyment and sense of presence, and reported experiencing less cognitive load. Thus, the findings suggest that VR could be used as a pedagogical tool to enhance foreign language listening skills.Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicPractising listening skills is key for language development.Virtual reality (VR) is motivational and engaging.Research on practising listening skills in VR is scarce.What this paper addsVR can be beneficial for practising listening skills.Language learners highly enjoy practising listening in VR.Interactivity can improve engagement and support listening comprehension.Implications for practice and/or policyLearners should be provided pretraining and scaffolding prior to using VR.The duration of VR activities should be considered.Interactivity in VR may increase its effectiveness in attending listening tasks.</p> <p>Keywords: cognitive load; enjoyment; high‐immersion virtual reality (VR); listening comprehension; sense of presence</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Practising listening skills is crucial for foreign language (FL) learners because understanding the listening input is the first step in developing communication skills in the target language (Feyten, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref1">23</reflink>]). Listening is often the most challenging area for FL learners due to the complexity of having to identify individual words and having to make sense out of them (Graham, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref2">30</reflink>]). When FL learners fail to form mental representations of what is heard, they tend to neglect the next part of the message (Goh, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>]). Consequently, they face difficulties in understanding the information that is being communicated to them.</p> <p>Although practising listening skills is important, learners rarely spend their time pursuing that practice because the process is challenging, lengthy, and requires high motivation (Flowerdew & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]). One method of motivating language learners to engage in listening practice is to incorporate technology such as YouTube videos into instructional materials (Damronglaohapan & Stevenson, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]). Longitudinal studies found watching YouTube videos to be an effective method to enhance FL learners' listening comprehension skills and language knowledge (Arndt & Woore, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]; Chien et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]; Yaacob et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref8">69</reflink>]). Learners attested that YouTube offered interesting, relevant, and beneficial materials for listening comprehension practice (Kelsen, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref9">41</reflink>]). This sentiment is primarily attributed to the abundance of freely available resources on YouTube, which allows for effortless customization according to individual learning preferences (Fadillah et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>]). Additionally, YouTube videos provide access to a wide variety of authentic content in the target language. Such content can enhance listening skills by exposing learners to diverse accents, colloquial language, and various speaking speeds (Balcikanli, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref11">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Meanwhile, potential limitations of YouTube exist due to factors such as the lack of interactivity, unfiltered content, and potential distractions (Lin, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref12">50</reflink>]). Some language learners also responded negatively to the ability of YouTube to motivate them during their solo study sessions (Silviyanti, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref13">63</reflink>]). Therefore, a more motivating alternative technology may be necessary to encourage learners to practise listening comprehension.</p> <p>Based on the concept of flow (Csíkszentmihályi, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]), which refers to a state of mind in which people are focused on enjoyable activities that they resist stopping, video games are another medium that could engage language learners in extensive listening practice (Casañ‐Pitarch, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref15">9</reflink>]). Extending beyond the offerings of video games, another promising technology for the development of listening skills is virtual reality (VR).</p> <p>High‐immersion VR offers multimodal and immersive experiences that can be beneficial for language learning (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]). VR technology allows for interactive and realistic scenarios that can increase learner engagement and motivation (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref17">37</reflink>]), making it an increasingly popular tool for language learning. Despite the growing interest in VR‐assisted language learning (VRALL), limited attention has been given to developing listening skills using VR (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref18">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Listening comprehension is a crucial language skill that requires extensive practice. Many learners have limited attention spans and struggle to concentrate on longer lectures or monologues, especially in a foreign language (Klaassen & De Graaff, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref19">42</reflink>]). The immersive nature of VR can help learners practise their listening comprehension skills, even in complex languages such as Chinese, by providing detailed visual information and incorporating gaming elements (Lampropoulos & Kinshuk, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref20">44</reflink>]). As a result, VR may enhance learners' interest in practising language skills.</p> <p>The current exploratory study aimed to investigate the potential impact of VR on language learners' listening comprehension of monologues, enjoyment, sense of presence and cognitive load. This research pioneers the comprehensive examination of these constructs, combining quantitative data with qualitative insights. The limited existing research on practising listening skills has mainly centred on comprehension of dialogues (Pinto et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref21">60</reflink>]; Tai & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref22">65</reflink>]). Nonetheless, dialogues, compared to monologues, offer more cues that can facilitate comprehension (Fox Tree, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>]), highlighting a significant distinction between the two speech formats. Lee ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref24">47</reflink>]) examined monologue comprehension, but like Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref25">60</reflink>]), he did not consider interactivity in the VR intervention. In the context of listening in VR, enjoyment has only been studied by Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref26">60</reflink>]). Sense of presence was only explored by Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref27">60</reflink>]) and Tai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref28">65</reflink>]). Although cognitive load plays a crucial role in multimedia learning (Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref29">53</reflink>]), prior research has neglected to explore this important aspect, and the interactive functions of VR were largely overlooked.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-3">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177678297-4">High‐immersion VR and language learning</hd> <p>High‐immersion VR has been defined 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="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>], p. 552). High‐immersion VR can be experienced only while wearing a VR headset. Viewing experiences on a two‐dimensional (2D) monitor is considered low‐immersion VR (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref31">34</reflink>]). This distinction is important because low‐immersion VR does not offer a high intensity of experience while high‐immersion VR (VR, hereafter) does.</p> <p>Researchers and practitioners have been increasingly exploring the potential of VR for language learning and teaching (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>]). One reason for this growing interest is that VR technology is becoming more available and affordable. Another reason can be attributed to the affordances of VR, which include authenticity, contextualization, safe space, a sense of agency, embodiment, and learner autonomy (Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref33">33</reflink>]). The authenticity and contextualization of VR offer language learners various settings where they can practise languages in a natural way, taking advantage of the fact that VR offers an unlimited number of scenarios that can be either replicas of real or imaginary places (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref34">35</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref35">33</reflink>]). For instance, Thrasher ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref36">66</reflink>]) took her students to virtual Paris to practise speaking while shielded behind avatars, which provided them with a sense of safety; that is, VR helps learners cope with foreign language anxiety (Gruber & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref38">38</reflink>]; Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref39">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Because VR has been recognized as a valuable platform for language learners, scholars have explored its potential for practising communicative skills and social interactions (Gruber & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]; Li & Lan, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref42">49</reflink>]; Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref43">66</reflink>]), including interactions in virtual exchanges (Dooly et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref44">21</reflink>]; Gruber et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref45">31</reflink>]) and one‐on‐one tutoring sessions (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref46">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>A systematic review of research on language learning in VR by Dhimolea et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref47">20</reflink>]) revealed that an area that has received the most attention is vocabulary learning (e.g., Alfadil, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref49">57</reflink>]). Much less has been explored in domains such as grammar, writing (Lan & Tam, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref50">45</reflink>]), and reading (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref51">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref52">37</reflink>]). One more area suffering from a dearth of research has been VR for practising listening skills. This study is filling that research gap.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-5">Foreign language listening comprehension</hd> <p>Listening comprehension is a key aspect of FL learning, and the listening comprehension ability in the first (native) language cannot predict success in listening comprehension in an FL (Feyten, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]). Compared with the first language, listening comprehension in the FL requires additional metacognitive skills beyond merely knowing the meaning of the heard words (Andringa et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>]). FL learners often report less confidence in listening comprehension than in other language skills (Graham, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref55">30</reflink>]). Listening comprehension may pose more challenges because it requires speedy cognitive functioning, which can involve multiple levels of language processing. Those levels include understanding language structure and rules (i.e., linguistics), understanding language in context (i.e., pragmatics), and understanding words and phrases (i.e., semantics; Arnold, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>]; Brunfaut & Révész, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref57">8</reflink>]). Unfortunately, in comparison with native speakers, FL learners tend to have limited language knowledge and need to distribute more cognitive resources to lower‐level cognitive processes (e.g., recognizing a word). Consequentially, FL listeners often fail to automatically activate other necessary cognitive processes, such as retrieving previously received information from the working memory (Morishima, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref58">55</reflink>]). Therefore, if certain technologies can reduce the cognitive load at the lower level, they may enable FL learners to allocate more cognitive resources to higher‐level cognitive processes, leading to better listening comprehension. This study examined how VR can affect FL learners' cognitive load to better understand the impact of VR.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-6">Listening comprehension in VR</hd> <p>Up until 2024, only three studies investigated the impact of VR on listening skills: Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref59">60</reflink>]), Tai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref60">65</reflink>]) and Lee ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref61">47</reflink>]). Although both Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref62">60</reflink>]) and Tai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref63">65</reflink>]) examined the effect of VR on dialogue comprehension, the two studies reached contradictory conclusions due to differences in methodologies and sample sizes. Lee ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref64">47</reflink>]) was the only one who examined the effect of VR on monologues, but the learning materials fell short of using the full potential of VR.</p> <p>To compare the learning effect of VR and 2D videos, Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref65">60</reflink>]) created dialogues in English as listening materials, one in an office and one in a pub. In both scenarios, adolescent participants in Portugal experienced the dialogues as observers. Listening comprehension of the conversations and retention were assessed with multiple‐choice questions. Two other instruments were used to measure participants' sense of presence and satisfaction. Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref66">60</reflink>]) found no significant difference in learning outcomes between learners who listened in VR and those who listened using 2D video. However, the small sample size (<emph>N</emph> = 12), the short language input (~2 min), and the lack of interaction hampered the study's insight into the effect of VR on listening comprehension. The longer language input (~20 min) used in the current study allowed participants enough time to experience and process the listening content in VR. Moreover, settings used in Pinto et al. such as a pub or an office, may have been quite unfamiliar for 12‐ to 15‐year‐old participants. The incompatibility between the participants and materials might have caused higher cognitive load impeding learning outcomes. Unfortunately, cognitive load was not measured in the study.</p> <p>Similar to Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref67">60</reflink>]), Tai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref68">65</reflink>]) examined the effect of VR on dialogue comprehension, but with participants engaging in the dialogues through voice recognition technology. Seventy‐two teenage participants from Taiwan conversed with computer‐generated agents in English to complete tasks in five daily scenarios, including a hospital, a hotel, and a train station. The duration of these VR scenarios varied (shortest = 4 min 45 s, longest = 7 min 2 s), and every scenario was shorter in the video format (~ 50 s). The VR application supported the conversation by providing suggested responses. The study assessed participants' listening comprehension with multiple‐choice questions, their retention through free recall activities, and sense of presence was measured with a questionnaire. Additional qualitative data were collected through semi‐structured interviews with participants from the VR group. Tai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref69">65</reflink>]) found that learners who experienced the dialogues in VR could recall significantly more details and main ideas than their counterparts who watched the dialogues in 2D videos. However, neither Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref70">60</reflink>]) nor Tai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref71">65</reflink>]) examined the effect of VR on monologue comprehension.</p> <p>In addition to dialogues, Lee ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref72">47</reflink>]) used an episode of TED Talk as the material for listening comprehension of monologues. All materials were in English. College students (<emph>N</emph> = 57), representing various majors and a diverse age range of 20 to 34 years old, were divided into two groups according to their language proficiency, and each group was further divided into three conditions: VR, video, and audio only. Language gains were assessed through pre‐ and posttests, and learners' perceived advantage was measured through open‐ended questions in a survey. Lee ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref73">47</reflink>]) found that learners who listened in VR and with videos performed significantly better than those who listened to audio only, but the difference between the VR group and video group was insignificant. However, like Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref74">60</reflink>]), the VR materials that Lee ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref75">47</reflink>]) applied involved no interaction between learners and the materials. Participants in Lee's ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref76">47</reflink>]) study were mere observers and did not interact with non‐player characters or objects in VR. Moreover, although the TED Talks were informative, they often involved one person talking on the stage with limited visual support, such as pictures, graphs, or relevant settings. Therefore, viewing TED Talks in VR was unlikely to provide meaningful visual details. Unfortunately, the limited information provided on the materials also created barriers to cognitive load prediction. In addition, the sample size (<emph>N</emph> = 54) with as many as six learning conditions hindered the full ability to explain the effect of VR on listening comprehension of monologues.</p> <p>Despite the spike in interest in VRALL, the results of the effect of VR on listening comprehension remain inconclusive (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]). The foregoing studies often focused on the comprehension of dialogues by creating or employing real‐life scenarios in VR, such as meetings and shopping (Lee, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref78">47</reflink>]; Pinto et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref79">60</reflink>]; Tai & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref80">65</reflink>]). However, the comprehension of dialogues is less challenging than monologues (Fox Tree, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref81">25</reflink>]; Garrod & Pickering, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref82">28</reflink>]). Although Lee ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref83">47</reflink>]) tried to examine the effect of VR on the comprehension of monologues, the lack of interactivity restricted the potential of VR. Additionally, Lee ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref84">47</reflink>]) and Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref85">60</reflink>]) both excluded interactivity and found no significant differences between the effect of 2D video and VR, while Tai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref86">65</reflink>]) who incorporated interactivity found VR to be a more effective medium. This discrepancy in findings implies that interactivity in VR may play a vital role in VRALL. Moreover, none of these studies examined cognitive load, although Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref87">60</reflink>]), Tai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref88">65</reflink>]) identified it as an important factor affecting listening comprehension. Our study bridges this gap by incorporating learning materials that incorporate human–object interactivity and immersion within VR and measuring participants' cognitive load.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-7">Theoretical foundation</hd> <p>The present study examined the effectiveness of VR for listening comprehension of monologues, which previous research, focusing on listening comprehension of dialogues, did not consider (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref89">20</reflink>]; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref90">47</reflink>]; Pinto et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref91">60</reflink>]; Tai & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref92">65</reflink>]). The necessity to examine listening comprehension of monologues is evident for several reasons. Collaborative theory maintains that participants in a dialogue collaborate to achieve a mutual understanding (Clark & Schaefer, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref93">14</reflink>]). Instead of simply taking turns to talk, speakers in dialogues adjust their speeches in ways that they believe the listeners can comprehend. Meanwhile, the listeners demonstrate their understanding either explicitly or by providing responses. Garrod and Pickering ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref94">28</reflink>]) echoed that participants often unconsciously perform interactive alignments of their situations, including space, time, and intention. Such joint effort can also aid the comprehension of overhearers and listeners who do not participate in the dialogue, with repetition and an additional perspective (Fox Tree, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref95">25</reflink>]). Furthermore, in comparison with dialogues, monologues tend to present fewer discourse markers that aid comprehension (Fox Tree, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref96">25</reflink>]). Therefore, proficiency in understanding dialogues does not necessarily translate into proficiency in understanding monologues. Because instructions are often given monologues, the exploration of the effect of VR on monologue comprehension may provide guidance to FL or second‐language education in VR.</p> <p>To enhance comprehension of monologues, this study used VR and 2D videos to present a monologue (i.e., a story). According to the dual coding theory, concreteness and imagery can improve memorization and other cognitive processes of verbal information (Clark & Paivio, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref97">15</reflink>]). Meanwhile, misused imagery and concreteness may hinder the cognitive process of information (Clark & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref98">16</reflink>]). While Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref99">53</reflink>]) proposed the multimedia principle, which partially supports the dual coding theory, he also developed the coherence principle. This principle states that decorative pictures, still or animated, can add distraction and increase extraneous cognitive processes. Hence, the additional environmental details offered in VR may increase learners' cognitive load and, consequently, impede learning (Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref100">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Studies since 2021 reported VR to be beneficial for learning (Petersen et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref101">59</reflink>]; Tai & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref102">65</reflink>]). Petersen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref103">59</reflink>]) sought to verify the cognitive‐affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL; Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref104">51</reflink>]) and proposed additions to it. The newer model suggested that higher interactivity in VR can predict a higher sense of presence and lower extraneous cognitive load. The original version of CAMIL and the version by Petersen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref105">59</reflink>]) also argue that sense of presence may predict engagement. However, whether presence can predict learning remains inconclusive (De Leo et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref106">19</reflink>]; Gao et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref107">27</reflink>]; Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref108">52</reflink>]; Petersen et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref109">59</reflink>]; Slater & Wilbur, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref110">64</reflink>]). Slater and Wilbur ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref111">64</reflink>]) described presence as a state in which participants sense and behave as if they were in the virtual world generated by the computer. In the study of Makransky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref112">52</reflink>]), college students reported a high presence in VR, but diminished learning of the science content. Meanwhile, based on a study in which students explored a virtual museum exhibition about viruses, Petersen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref113">59</reflink>]) suggested that immersion and interaction are positively correlated with presence, which can predict more learning. The authors found that presence can promote intrinsic motivation and situated interest, which then lead to improvement in learning. Moreover, motivation is essential for listening comprehension in FL because it may increase the use of metacognitive strategies, which is important to listening comprehension among non‐native speakers (Andringa et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref114">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>To further support listening comprehension and lower cognitive load, this study offered participants a scaffolding session. Providing learners with background information on the listening materials through scaffolding is one of the most effective methods to support listening comprehension (Chang & Read, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref115">10</reflink>]). Parong and Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref116">58</reflink>]) also suggested using scaffolding on the key vocabulary of the content to reduce cognitive load when conducting instruction through multimedia. Therefore, this study participants received scaffolding on the high‐frequency words and some information about the characters of the story.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-8">Study purpose and research questions</hd> <p>The existing literature and the theoretical foundations pertaining to learning in VR indicate that scholastic attention to learning in VR is grounded in its potential benefits. For example, VR can both motivate and engage language learners (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref117">20</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref118">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref119">37</reflink>]; Thrasher et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref120">67</reflink>]), but only Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref121">60</reflink>]) studied it in the context of listening in VR. Sense of presence is an important aspect of VR but was only explored by Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref122">60</reflink>]) and Tai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref123">65</reflink>]). In some cases, VR can also lower the cognitive load (Petersen et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref124">59</reflink>]). Nonetheless, the effect of VR on listening comprehension, especially on monologues, remains unclear and underexplored (Lee, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref125">47</reflink>]; Petersen et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref126">59</reflink>]; Pinto et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref127">60</reflink>]; Tai & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref128">65</reflink>]). This exploratory study is bridging these research gaps by seeking an effective way for FL learners to practice listening comprehension by answering the following research questions (RQs):</p> <p>RQ1: Is there a significant difference in FL learners' scores on listening comprehension between the VR group and the video group?</p> <p>RQ2: Is there a significant difference in FL learners' enjoyment between the VR group and the video group?</p> <p>RQ3: Is there a significant difference in FL learners' sense of presence between the VR group and the video group?</p> <p>RQ4: Is there a significant difference in FL learners' cognitive load between the VR group and the video group?</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-9">METHODS</hd> <p>To answer our research questions, we designed a quasi‐experimental, between‐subject study based on quantitative data that were supported with qualitative elements. The demographic data included language proficiency, age, gender, previous experience with VR and number of years studying Chinese. The dependent variables were scores measuring listening comprehension, enjoyment, sense of presence, and cognitive load, which were analysed using MANCOVA. Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) version 9.4 assisted us with data analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-10">Participants</hd> <p>This study adhered to ethical standards and received approval from the institutional review board (IRB) at the University of North Texas. The study took place at a Title 1 high school in North Texas, with the majority (60%) of the students coming from low‐income families. Participants were recruited through schoolwide announcements, posters, and snowballing. A total of 59 volunteers consented to participate, with 43 (male = 19, female = 21 and non‐binary = 3) completing the VR training and the treatment. The participants' age ranged from 16 to 18, the average age was 17 (<emph>M</emph><subs>VR</subs> = 17.43, <emph>M</emph><subs>video</subs> = 16.65), and the median was 17 (<emph>Mdn</emph><subs>VR</subs> = 18, <emph>Mdn</emph><subs>video</subs> = 17). The pilot study (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Ye, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref129">40</reflink>]) suggested that the story used in the study was too linguistically challenging for novice learners. Therefore, first‐ and second‐year learners were excluded from the study. The included participants had been learning Chinese for at least three years.</p> <p>The experiment was conducted for two groups of subjects: the treatment VR group and the control video group. The study was conducted for the two groups at different times due to the limited availability of the testing space, VR equipment, and participants. The subjects were self‐selected into the VR group or video group based only on their availability at the required time, without knowing the nature of the experiment or whether they were joining a treatment or control group. The assignment of subjects to the conditions could therefore be described as a single‐blind convenience assignment. To ensure anonymity, participants were assigned random codes, and pseudonyms were used when quoting their responses.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-11">Study procedures</hd> <p>The students participated in the study independently from each other. The study procedures for the VR and video groups were similar. All participants were asked to complete the same number and types of tests and questionnaires in the same amount of time. The only considerable difference was the medium through which the participants listened to the story (VR vs. video). All the study steps took place on the grounds of a high school in a regular classroom. The study procedures started with a pilot study, which was followed by a pretest (~15 min), pretraining (~10 min), a scaffolding session (~5 min), the experiment (~20 min), posttest (~15 min) and postexperiment questionnaires (~10 min), and concluded with semi‐structured interviews (~5 min). Figure 1 shows the steps of the study within each group.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul24/bjet13481-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13481-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The study procedures." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177678297-13">Pilot</hd> <p>A pilot study was conducted with 10 students to test the feasibility of the study design materials and instruments and to identify potential issues before implementing the exploratory study. The pilot study helped refine the study protocol, test the VR and video equipment, and assess the reliability of the study instruments. As a part of this process, Cronbach's alpha was employed to validate the test questions, and the necessary changes were made based on the results obtained. The data from the pilot study were not included in the data of the main study. Details describing the pilot study can be found in Kaplan‐Rakowski and Ye ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref130">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-14">Technology pretraining and pretest</hd> <p>After the completion of the pilot study, the exploratory study commenced, and data were collected over 2 days. On the first day, all participants took a pretest. Then, the VR group received pretraining, which served two main purposes. First, students were able to familiarize themselves with VR technology and to practise interacting with objects in VR, which can predict satisfaction (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref131">11</reflink>]). In the VR application used for the pretraining, Mission: ISS, participants experienced a space station simulation in which they practised interacting with objects in VR, such as turning handles and pushing switches. This practice was useful because similar interactions were required for the VR app used in the study experiment.</p> <p>Second, recommendations from previous studies (e.g., Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref132">57</reflink>]) emphasized the importance of exposing participants to VR to mitigate the initial novelty effect and allow ample time for that initial fascination to dissipate before administering the main study intervention. The video group did not receive pretraining as video technology is considered familiar to most people.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-15">Scaffolding, intervention, and posttest</hd> <p>On the second day, prior to the intervention, all study participants received a 5‐min hard scaffolding session covering the background of the story and core vocabulary. The rationale for scaffolding was to lower participants' cognitive load and was based on previous studies suggesting that VR is prone to violate the segmenting principle of multimedia learning (Parong & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref133">58</reflink>]). Moreover, scaffolding on the background of the listening materials can effectively improve learners' comprehension by compensating listeners' limitations in linguistic proficiency (Chang & Read, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref134">10</reflink>]). Mayer and Pilegard ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref135">54</reflink>]) also suggested scaffolding on relevant vocabulary items as a way to lower learners' cognitive load during multimedia learning.</p> <p>To determine what information and vocabulary to include in the scaffolding and tests, the researchers ran a frequency count of the transcript of the story. Only abstract words were selected because they are most challenging to process, even with visual aids. Consequently, the researcher introduced the six most frequently used words in the target story, with their English translations, and provided sentences using those words. In addition, the researcher familiarized the participants with the context of the story by showing pictures and labels depicting the story setting and its characters.</p> <p>After the scaffolding session, the intervention took place. That is, the VR group experienced the story in VR, and the video group watched the screencast of the same story on a 2D monitor (see Figure 2). Immediately after the intervention, participants completed the posttest and the questionnaire. The questionnaire collected demographic information, such as age, gender, and prior experience with VR.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul24/bjet13481-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13481-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Participants during intervention. Depicted on the left is a participant experiencing virtual reality; on the right: Viewing a video." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177678297-17">Materials</hd> <p>For the main content of the study experiment, we used an app called The Line, downloaded from Oculus Store. This app is an award‐winning 15‐ to 20‐min interactive VR experience about the love and fear of change, set in a scale model of 1940s São Paulo, Brazil. Users can unlock the story of two miniature dolls named Pedro and Rosa by interacting with the model. Although the time participants spent in VR slightly varied, the amount and duration of language input all participants received were the same because the story narration was only played once. A simple and repeating structure of the story was aimed to support the participants' comprehension because, besides scaffolding, repetition is an effective method to enhance listening comprehension (Chang & Read, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref136">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>The VR technology used in the study was Oculus Quest 2 headsets, which, in addition to a full 360‐degree view and surround sound, were equipped with hand controllers allowing for haptic interaction within the app. Participants in the experimental group interacted by manipulating switches, knobs, cords, and other objects to unfold the story. Participants from the video group watched a recording of the same story. The recording was displayed on a whiteboard using an Epson 880X projector.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-18">Instruments</hd> <p>This study consisted of five instruments that the participants were given for up to 15 minutes to complete. Listening comprehension tests focused on the linguistic outcomes. The questionnaires measuring enjoyment, sense of presence, and cognitive load focused on the affective aspects of the intervention. The expert panel consisted of two native speakers of Chinese and one person with sufficient proficiency in Chinese to confirm the validity and reliability of the instruments. Two researchers specialized in educational technology and language pedagogy, and the third, external expert specialized in linguistics, pedagogy, and measurement, allowing the team to refine the instruments and confirm face validity.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-19">Listening comprehension</hd> <p>To assess participants' listening comprehension, we administered a pretest and a posttest, each comprising 17 multiple‐choice and three free‐response questions, totalling 20 questions per test. All the questions had an audio file with a recording in the target language (to hear an example, click here). All recordings were short segments derived from the story that could be understood without listening to the whole story.</p> <p>In the multiple‐choice questions, participants listened to audio prompts and were required to choose the correct meaning from seven available options, including 'I don't know' to discourage participants from guessing (Alderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref137">1</reflink>]). Only one option was considered correct and, when selected, was assigned one (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref138">1</reflink>) point. If an incorrect or 'I don't know' option was selected, zero (0) points were assigned.</p> <p>The three free‐response questions were scored differently, as they assessed listening comprehension through written explanations of heard phrases or sentences, not multiple‐choice answers. The maximum point allowance for the first free‐response question was three (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref139">3</reflink>), while the second and third questions each allowed for a maximum of five (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref140">5</reflink>) points. To sum it up, participants could receive a maximum of 30 points on their test (17 points from the multiple‐choice questions and 13 points from the free‐response questions).</p> <p>The scoring criteria were the same for both pretest and posttest. However, concerned with the potential for test sensitization, we altered the wording of the posttest items to differentiate them from the pretest items, while maintaining their conceptual consistency. The accuracy of all the responses was assessed by the research panel until an acceptable Cohen's <emph>K</emph> of 0.85 was achieved (Lavrakas, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref141">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>To further assess participants' comprehension of the story, the 17 multiple‐choice questions in the posttest included inference questions that could not be answered by looking only at the visuals. That is, participants needed to listen attentively to be able to answer the questions correctly. For example, some of the questions were as follows: 'How does Pedro feel about his life at the beginning?' or 'What does Pedro want to do someday?' Answering those questions required attentive listening to the story because merely viewing the story in VR or via video would not help students offer answers to these questions.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-20">Enjoyment</hd> <p>In addition to measuring linguistic gains, we assessed the self‐reported affective impact of the intervention. Aligning with the objective of RQ2, our aim was to examine the differences in levels of enjoyment experienced by the VR group and the video group. We implemented a well‐established questionnaire focusing on enjoyment (Plant & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref142">61</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref143">62</reflink>]). The research team modified the original items to fit the specific context of the study. Consequently, the questionnaire consisted of seven questions that used a 7‐point Likert scale to gauge agreement with statements ranging from <emph>not true at all</emph> to <emph>very true</emph>. The responses to five items were positively coded (e.g., 'This activity was fun to do'), while two responses were reverse coded (e.g., 'I thought this was a boring activity'). The inventory had excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.95.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-21">Sense of presence</hd> <p>To answer RQ3, we employed the sense of presence instrument which consisted of items determining students' involvement within the story. For example, when prompted with 'I felt immersed in the story', students were to select their option within the range from <emph>strongly agree</emph> to <emph>strongly disagree</emph> on a 7‐point Likert scale. This instrument was adapted from Gandolfi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref144">26</reflink>]). Of the original set of 21 items, we selected nine that reflected the context of our study and modified them accordingly. The modified instrument demonstrated high reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.92, indicating 'very good' reliability.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-22">Cognitive load</hd> <p>To determine whether there were differences in cognitive load scores between the VR group and the video group, we used an established instrument developed by Leppink et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref145">48</reflink>]). We adopted the 10‐item original instrument to suit our context, which provided us with eight final items: three intrinsic items (e.g., 'This listening activity was very complex'), three extraneous items, and two germane items. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.78, indicating an acceptable level of reliability. This level suggests that the items were moderately consistent in measuring the same construct and that the instrument is likely to produce consistent results when used repeatedly with the same population or under similar conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-23">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177678297-24">Diagnostics for group differences</hd> <p>All participants were drawn from the same high school and had relatively similar ages and levels of Chinese. Because the participants were assigned to groups on a single‐blind convenience basis, we performed several diagnostics to check for differences between groups. To state gender differences, we conducted a Chi‐squared test. The results indicated no statistically significant association between gender and group assignment <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref146">2</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 43) = 2.91, <emph>p</emph> = 0.23, suggesting that with regard to gender, the groups were homogeneous.</p> <p>The quasi‐experimental design of this study, in which randomization was not fully controlled, prompted us to perform equivalence tests via the SAS TOST (two one‐sided tests) option to the SAS <emph>t</emph>‐test procedure to verify that our sample groups did not meaningfully differ in measurable characteristics. Following recommendations by Wang and Amrhein ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref147">68</reflink>]), we set our confidence limit (CL) for the mean at 90%. Having consulted our panel of experts, this boundary was deemed appropriate in the context of our study. With a null hypothesis of non‐equivalence, the analyses suggested VR and video groups were not equivalent based on age, prior VR experience, and number of years learning Chinese. This motivated the inclusion of these variables as covariates in our MANCOVA procedure. Table 1 provides statistics associated with equivalence tests.</p> <p>1 TABLE Equivalence tests statistics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Lower bound</th><th align="left">90% CL mean</th><th align="left">Upper bound</th><th align="left">Maximum <italic>p</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.85</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.27</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.3</td><td align="char" char=".">0.85</td><td align="char" char=".">0.41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">VR Experience</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.45</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.83</td></tr><tr><td align="left">L2 Years</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.94</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.93</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>These diagnostics for group differences determined the choice to conduct MANCOVA with pretest scores, age, previous VR experience, and years of learning Chinese as covariates. This process allowed for testing the overall effect of the intervention on listening comprehension, enjoyment, sense of presence, and cognitive load. See Table 2 for details on MANCOVA regarding estimates, standard errors, <emph>t</emph> and <emph>p</emph> values.</p> <p>2 TABLE Multivariate analysis of covariance for listening, presence, enjoyment and cognitive load.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Parameter</th><th align="left">Listening</th><th align="left">Presence</th><th align="left">Enjoyment</th><th align="left">Cognitive load</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>T</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Intercept</td><td align="char" char=".">6.40</td><td align="char" char=".">9.98</td><td align="char" char=".">0.64</td><td align="char" char=".">0.53</td><td align="char" char=".">5.95</td><td align="char" char=".">2.84</td><td align="char" char=".">2.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">7.19</td><td align="char" char=".">2.78</td><td align="char" char=".">2.58</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">3.12</td><td align="char" char=".">2.56</td><td align="char" char=".">1.22</td><td align="char" char=".">0.23</td></tr><tr><td align="left">VR</td><td align="char" char=".">3.21</td><td align="char" char=".">1.23</td><td align="char" char=".">2.60</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">1.72</td><td align="char" char=".">0.35</td><td align="char" char=".">4.90</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">1.92</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34</td><td align="char" char=".">5.56</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.52</td><td align="char" char=".">0.32</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.64</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pretest</td><td align="char" char=".">0.83</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">8.18</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.92</td><td align="char" char=".">0.37</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">1.45</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.27</td><td align="char" char=".">0.61</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.44</td><td align="char" char=".">0.66</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.97</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.98</td><td align="char" char=".">0.33</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.61</td><td align="char" char=".">0.55</td></tr><tr><td align="left">VR experience</td><td align="char" char=".">0.52</td><td align="char" char=".">1.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.46</td><td align="char" char=".">0.65</td><td align="char" char=".">0.37</td><td align="char" char=".">0.32</td><td align="char" char=".">1.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.26</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.32</td><td align="char" char=".">0.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.85</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.30</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.69</td><td align="char" char=".">0.50</td></tr><tr><td align="left">L2 years</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.98</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">0.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.76</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.59</td><td align="char" char=".">0.56</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0177678297-25">MANCOVA assumptions</hd> <p>Prior to conducting the MANCOVA, we verified the necessary assumptions. First, we confirmed the appropriate level of measurement for our multiple continuous dependent variables, such as listening comprehension, enjoyment, sense of presence, and cognitive load. Second, our independent variable, which described two distinct learning conditions (VR vs. video), was divided into two levels, each corresponding to a separate group of participants, who independently engaged with the learning conditions. This design satisfied the MANCOVA requirement of independence of observations.</p> <p>As suggested by Oppong and Agbedra ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref148">56</reflink>]), we confirmed that the sample satisfied the necessary conditions for multivariate normality with a visual examination of Q‐Q plots. Such an examination further verified the absence of multivariate outliers. In addition, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov goodness‐of‐fit tests resulted in high <emph>p</emph>‐values for listening comprehension and presence (<emph>p</emph> > 0.16) and enjoyment (0.08), suggesting that the data for these variables do not significantly deviate from a normal distribution. The <emph>p</emph>‐value for the cognitive load (0.05) was borderline.</p> <p>Fourth, the variance inflation factor (VIF), a metric used to assess the existence and severity of multicollinearity, showed values that were well within acceptable limits (the VIF was less than 3 for all independent variables, while a VIF less than 5 is recommended). These values indicated an absence of multicollinearity, thereby satisfying another assumption for the validity of the MANCOVA analysis.</p> <p>Last, Levene's test for homogeneity of variances was conducted to assess the equality of variances across the groups. The results revealed that the <emph>p</emph>‐values (where <emph>p</emph>‐values less than 0.05 would indicate non‐homogenous variances) were not significant (<emph>p</emph> = 0.19 for listening comprehension, <emph>p</emph> = 0.56 for enjoyment, <emph>p</emph> = 0.71 for presence and <emph>p</emph> = 0.40 for cognitive load). Therefore, the assumption of homogeneity of variances, necessary for conducting MANCOVA, was supported.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-26">MANCOVA</hd> <p>A multivariate analysis of covariance was conducted to determine the effect of technology type (VR vs. video) on the combined dependent variables (presence, enjoyment, cognitive load, and posttest scores) while controlling for age, prior VR experience, L2 years, and pretest scores. The results indicated a significant effect of the type of technology on the combined dependent variables, Wilks' Lambda = 0.453, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref149">4</reflink>, 38) = 11.45, <emph>p</emph> < 0.0001, suggesting strong multivariate effects of the intervention. Similarly, Pillai's trace also supported this finding, with a value of 0.547, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref150">4</reflink>, 38) = 11.45, <emph>p</emph> < 0.0001. Hotelling's trace and Roy's largest root confirmed significant effects, with both having values of 1.215, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref151">4</reflink>, 38) = 11.45, <emph>p</emph> < 0.0001.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-27">VR group scored significantly higher on listening comprehension</hd> <p>The VR group received an average of 11.22 (<emph>SD</emph> = 7.05) points on the listening comprehension test, compared with 6.7 (<emph>SD</emph> = 4.28) points for the video comparison group. Controlling for covariates such as pretest scores, age, previous VR experience, and years of learning Chinese, scores for the VR group were 4.51 points higher than the video group. The MANCOVA revealed for that difference to be significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref152">42</reflink>)</subs> = 2.60, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.15). The effect size was large. See Table 2 for means, standard deviations, minimum values, and maximum values for each of the items.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-28">VR group reported significantly higher enjoyment</hd> <p>As Table 3 shows, the average enjoyment score of the VR group was 6.30 points (of 7 possible points), which was about 41% higher than the average of the video group with a mean of 4.47. To determine the effect of the intervention on enjoyment, we conducted MANCOVA controlling for covariates such as age, previous VR experience, and years of learning Chinese. MANCOVA showed that the difference in enjoyment was statistically significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref153">42</reflink>)</subs> = 30.93, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.46). The effect size was large.</p> <p>3 TABLE Descriptive statistics of the study constructs.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Construct</th><th align="left">Virtual reality (<italic>n</italic><sub>1</sub> = 23)</th><th align="left">Video (<italic>n</italic><sub>2</sub> = 20)</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">Min</th><th align="left">Max</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">Min</th><th align="left">Max</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Listening (pretest)</td><td align="char" char=".">7.04</td><td align="char" char=".">7.38</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td><td align="char" char=".">5.35</td><td align="char" char=".">3.05</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Listening (posttest)</td><td align="char" char=".">11.22</td><td align="char" char=".">7.05</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td><td align="char" char=".">6.7</td><td align="char" char=".">4.28</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">15</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Enjoyment</td><td align="char" char=".">6.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.80</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.47</td><td align="char" char=".">1.16</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.29</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sense of presence</td><td align="char" char=".">5.39</td><td align="char" char=".">1.02</td><td align="char" char=".">3.44</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">3.65</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.22</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cognitive load</td><td align="char" char=".">3.52</td><td align="char" char=".">0.85</td><td align="char" char=".">1.89</td><td align="char" char=".">5.67</td><td align="char" char=".">4.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.96</td><td align="char" char=".">2.78</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Score ranges were 0 to 30 for listening comprehension tests, 1 to 7 for enjoyment, 1 to 7 for sense of presence, and 1 to 7 for cognitive load.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-29">VR group reported significantly higher sense of presence</hd> <p>As Table 3 shows, the VR average score of 5.39 points (of 7 possible points) was about 48% higher than the average of the video group's score of 3.65 points. To determine the effect of the intervention on the sense of presence, we conducted MANCOVA controlling for covariates such as age, previous VR experience, and years of learning Chinese. MANCOVA showed that the difference in sense of presence was significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref154">42</reflink>)</subs> = 24.03, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.39). The effect size was large.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-30">VR group reported lower cognitive load</hd> <p>To determine the effect of the intervention on cognitive load, we conducted MANCOVA controlling for covariates such as age, previous VR experience, and years of learning Chinese. As Table 3 reports, the average cognitive load score of the VR group was 3.52 points (of 7 possible points), which was about 14.37% lower than the average of the video group with a mean of 4.11. However, MANCOVA showed that the difference in cognitive load was not significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref155">42</reflink>)</subs> = 2.69, <emph>p</emph> = 0.11, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.07). The effect size was moderate.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-31">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The objective of this research was to examine the impact of VR on language learners' listening comprehension skills. Although further studies are needed to solidify the study findings, our analyses showed that, compared with the video group, the listening comprehension scores of the VR group were significantly higher, VR students reported significantly more enjoyment, VR students reported significantly more sense of presence, and VR students reported experiencing lower levels of cognitive load.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-32">VR facilitated listening comprehension</hd> <p>Although the VR group and the video group received the same story with identical visual and audial information, the study outcomes suggest that the VR group significantly outperformed the video group in listening comprehension. Interactivity and perceived enjoyment are the two aspects that could explain this finding. First, participants' comments suggested that interactivity in VR contributed to positive learning outcomes. To reveal the narrative of the study, VR participants were required to engage proactively through the manipulation of several knobs and switches. This manipulation not only introduced an interactive element but also heightened students' agency and command within the experience (Kong et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref156">43</reflink>]). Indeed, several VR group participants expressed that interactivity (which was available only in the VR experience) provided indicators to story transitions, improving focus and comprehension. Similarly, Tai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref157">65</reflink>]) used interactive VR materials and the VR group outperformed the video group in comprehending dialogues. Meanwhile, materials in Pinto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref158">60</reflink>]) were non‐interactive which may have contributed to insignificant differences between the effect of VR and the effect of video on listening comprehension.</p> <p>This study participants' comments hinted at how interactivity could help them make predictions and keep their attention. One participant commented, 'Getting to interact with the things, like leading to the next part of the story, it kinda puts together the pieces'. Another participant added, 'I felt it [interactivity] kept my attention very well, because sometimes I will be trying to listen, and I just ... buzz, like buzz out, and like, hmm, the little motion and stuff helped me focus'.</p> <p>Our finding supports the CAMIL theoretical framework proposed by Petersen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref159">59</reflink>]) but contradicts the findings of Makransky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref160">52</reflink>]). Close examination of the VR materials in Petersen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref161">59</reflink>]), Makransky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref162">52</reflink>]), and the current study suggests that content complexity may be a key factor in determining the impact of VR on learning. Makransky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref163">52</reflink>]) chose a science lab simulation where participants needed to explore and comprehend explanations and experiment with newly gained knowledge. The VR materials used by Petersen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref164">59</reflink>]) and the present study offered an easy‐to‐follow narration with visual support in an informal learning setting. Perhaps this difference illustrates the condition in which VR can better assist learning; that is, an informal learning environment, with short and easy‐to‐follow materials.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-33">VR students reported significantly more enjoyment</hd> <p>Compared with the video group, the VR group reported higher enjoyment, which can lead to higher engagement and focus (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref165">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref166">37</reflink>]). Such enjoyment was reflected in the questionnaire responses and in the qualitative data collected through field observations. Along with a systematic review by Dhimolea et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref167">20</reflink>]), our study confirmed that VR is highly enjoyable for language learners in the context of listening comprehension tasks. Previous research has found that language learners report positive experiences learning in VR (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref168">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref169">37</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Wojdynski, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref170">39</reflink>]), expressing high engagement, excitement, and interest. Such engagement was reported in studies encompassing social interactions in VR (e.g., Gruber et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref171">31</reflink>]; Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref172">66</reflink>]) and interactions with virtual humans (Gruber & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref173">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Besides interactivity, another potential reason why VR may be more enjoyable for language learners compared with traditional video‐based learning is that learners can benefit from high immersion and presence that traditional video‐based learning cannot provide. The ability to be truly within the learning environment makes the experience more enjoyable. Our study contributes to a better understanding of practising listening skills in VR, suggesting that VR offers a sense of agency that may be contributing to that enjoyment. Qualitative data through field observations suggested that the VR group was more engaged than the video group during the intervention. Many VR participants expressed positive attitudes towards the VR story. For example, one participant commented: '[The story in VR was] cute, like it was cute enough to keep your attention'. Meanwhile, participants from the video group had varying attitudes towards the story. While some students stated that they enjoyed the video, others found it boring. In fact, one participant fell asleep during the intervention, and the researcher had to wake him up.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-34">VR students reported significantly more sense of presence</hd> <p>As expected, the VR group experienced a significantly higher sense of presence compared with the video group. By wearing a VR headset, users block the view of the real world. This detachment from reality facilitates the transfer to the virtual world, allowing participants to 'travel by the headset' (Chun et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref174">13</reflink>]). One of the participants commented, 'You can see so much! You can receive so much information with your sight, and it all feels so real, like, it's all right there!' The students felt that they were a part of the story.</p> <p>Similar results were revealed in a study in which German learners of English rehearsed public speaking in VR and mentioned experiencing a sense of presence (Gruber & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref175">32</reflink>]). Despite being conscious that they were interacting with virtual agents that were not real, the participants' behaviour suggested that they treated the virtual agents as if they were real. Likewise, Tai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref176">65</reflink>]) reported experiencing a sense of presence, which helped them complete listening comprehension tasks. This finding further aligns with a study by Kaplan‐Rakowski and Gruber ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref177">37</reflink>]), which focused on reading comprehension tasks in VR.</p> <p>A heightened sense of presence in VR experiences can positively impact learning outcomes, particularly in listening comprehension. The immersive and realistic nature of VR can enhance engagement, attention, and emotional connection, all of which contribute to a more effective learning experience. Researchers and educators can leverage these insights to design VR‐based learning interventions that capitalize on the benefits of presence to improve comprehension and retention of auditory content.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-35">VR students reported experiencing less cognitive load</hd> <p>Our study found that the cognitive load scores of the VR group were lower compared with the video group in the context of listening comprehension. Surprisingly, the VR group reported less cognitive load despite assumptions that VR can extensively tax cognitive resources due to  rich multimedia stimuli (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref178">6</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref179">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>This finding contradicts previous research, such as Baceviciute et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref180">6</reflink>]), which found that VR can be cognitively overloading when used for reading. The difference in findings may be due to the VR task being more enjoyable and less cognitively charging in our study, during which students listened to a 'cute' interactive multimedia story, as opposed to Baceviciute et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref181">6</reflink>]), with participants having to recall specific information. The diminished cognitive load experienced by the VR group can be attributed to a variety of factors; for example, the immersive qualities of VR heighten engagement (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref182">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref183">37</reflink>]), and enable personalized, multisensory experiences, while also aiding improved contextualization (Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref184">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>The design of VR experience likely helped optimize the information delivery (i.e., the story content comprehension) by introducing interactive elements which guided participants' attention and likely increased their sense of agency. Echoing findings by Kaplan‐Rakowski and Gruber ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref185">37</reflink>]), as opposed to the video group, the VR group was deeply immersed in the story and even though complex cognitive processes may have been taking place, the VR participants did not feel overwhelmed, as evidenced by the cognitive load scores.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-36">Limitations and future studies</hd> <p>This study had four main limitations that underline the preliminary nature of our findings and the need for cautious interpretation. First, our sample contained students with advanced FL experience and was limited in size (<emph>N</emph> = 43) which impeded the implementation of the mediation analysis and curtailed the generalizability of our findings. Future research should use larger and more diverse samples of language learners, encompassing a range of linguistic backgrounds and levels of language proficiency.</p> <p>Second, listening comprehension tasks can activate listening anxiety (Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref186">70</reflink>]). Given that VR helps language learners cope with speaking anxiety (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref187">38</reflink>]; Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref188">66</reflink>]), we may assume that VR can also be useful for learners with listening anxiety. Therefore, future studies should encompass an assessment of how listening anxiety varies between the VR and video groups.</p> <p>Third, our study was based on one story in a one‐time intervention. We adopted this approach to ensure that the study results were unaffected by any uncontrolled variables or extraneous factors that could have been influenced by multiple interventions. Future studies should consider testing how practising listening skills can be facilitated in extended durations of multiple interventions.</p> <p>Fourth, although our subjects did not know if they were selected into an experimental or control group, due to logistical constraints, the participation in the study was by convenience sampling, and the allocation of participants to the groups was through single‐blind convenience assignment. This process could influence the internal validity of the study in several ways.</p> <p>For example, such an assignment may introduce biases linked to the participants' inherent characteristics, such as their motivation levels or the amount of free time they have for participation. These inherent biases, stemming from self‐selection based on availability, raise concerns about the nature of the potential baseline differences between groups. Although we quantified several characteristics of the participants, such as age, gender, prior VR experience, and years of learning Chinese, the inclusion of additional background information and data on personality traits would have provided a more controlled analysis.</p> <p>Participants' traits could influence the findings of the study, as individuals with higher motivation or more available time might be predisposed to engage more thoroughly with the treatment, thereby skewing the results. The likelihood that such baseline differences affected test performance is notable, as these traits could directly impact the engagement and effectiveness of the educational interventions. Such a bias could be particularly pronounced if these traits happen to correlate with the experimental engagement or the outcomes being measured, thus affecting the comparability of the VR and video groups.</p> <p>Empirical analysis evaluating group equivalence is essential to understand the extent to which these potential biases have influenced the study results. If our experimental and control groups had significant differences in socio‐demographic characteristics, these differences could interfere with the study results. Such interference could complicate the task of determining whether the effects observed are truly due to the VR treatment or if they stem from extraneous variables.</p> <p>In sum, although the logistical constraints tied to the intervention scheduling should not have impacted the study, the single‐blind convenience assignment is a limitation that makes the study exploratory in nature. We have, therefore, conducted equivalence tests using TOST technique. Next, we followed with MANCOVA to control for the effects of covariates (e.g., pretest scores, age, prior VR experience, and years of learning Chinese) that may have influenced the dependent variables, thereby providing a more accurate estimate of the effect of the intervention. However, adjustments to causal claims about the effect of VR versus video interventions are necessary due to these potential biases. That is, the biases from sampling and assignment could distort the true effectiveness of the intervention, suggesting the need for stringent statistical adjustments that future research should consider. Forward‐looking, to provide more definitive insights, follow‐up studies should employ more formal randomization techniques for participant recruitment and group assignment.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-37">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>This study provides insight into how interactivity in VR can support learning and how it aligns with the CAMIL. While the original CAMIL included agency, it did not address the impact of interactivity (Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref189">51</reflink>]). Petersen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref190">59</reflink>]) later emphasized that interactivity both enhances presence and increases the sense of agency. Our study extends this aspect by suggesting that interactivity may also improve comprehension when the interactivity is meaningful to learning.</p> <p>Our study findings suggest that VR has potential as a pedagogical tool for enhancing listening skills in language learning. Using VR for listening activities can motivate both reluctant and eager language learners by providing an interactive multimedia environment. Engaging in VR listening tasks can foster favorable attitudes towards listening, improve comprehension, and make listening practice be done on a regular, habitual basis rather than being treated as a tedious task. VR listening tasks in the classroom may encourage students to pursue listening activities outside of school, potentially increasing the time spent on listening. A unique advantage of VR listening activities is that they limit external distractions, as users are fully immersed in the listening environment.</p> <p>This study provides some preliminary evidence of positive outcomes of using VR for practising listening skills. Given that VR technology is increasingly available and affordable, we may expect a surge in its use for educational purposes. However, as of 2024, it cannot be claimed that this technology is for everyone due to its relatively high cost compared with a more conventional technology such as video.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-38">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>We extend our gratitude to all the participants who devoted their time and shared their insights throughout this study. We also wish to thank Dr Xian Zhang and our other panel members for their expert guidance and thoughtful feedback while preparing the study.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-39">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="AN0177678297-40">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0177678297-41">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="AN0177678297-42">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>This study was approved and conducted in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the University of North Texas Institutional Review Board, and the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.</p> <ref id="AN0177678297-43"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref137" type="bt">1</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="bib2" idref="ref48" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alfadil, M. (2020). Effectiveness of virtual reality game in foreign language vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education, 153, 103893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103893</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref54" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Andringa, S., Olsthoorn, N., van Beuningen, C., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. (2012). Determinants of success in native and non‐native listening comprehension: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 62 (s2), 49 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9922.2012.00706.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref6" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arndt, H. L., & Woore, R. (2018). Vocabulary learning from watching YouTube videos and reading blog posts. Language Learning & Technology, 22 (3), 124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref56" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arnold, J. (2000). Seeing through listening comprehension exam anxiety. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (4), 777 – 786. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587791</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref178" type="bt">6</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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref11" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Balcikanli, C. (2010). Long live, YouTube: L2 stories about YouTube in language learning. In A. Stafaei & M. Nejati (Eds.), Annals of language and learning: Proceedings of the 2009 international online language conference (IOLC 2009), universal‐publishers (pp. 91 – 96). Universal Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref57" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brunfaut, T., & Révész, A. (2015). The role of task and listener characteristics in second language listening. TESOL Quarterly, 49 (1), 141 – 168. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.168</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref15" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Casañ‐Pitarch, R. (2018). An approach to digital game‐based learning: Video‐games principles and applications in foreign language learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research (Online), 9 (6), 1147 – 1159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, A. C. S., & Read, J. (2008). Reducing listening test anxiety through various forms of listening support. TESL‐EJ, 12 (1), 1 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, M., Chai, C., Jong, M. S., & Chao, G. C. (2021). Modeling learners' self‐concept in Chinese descriptive writing based on the affordances of a virtual reality‐supported environment. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (5), 6013 – 6032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐021‐10582‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chien, C. C., Huang, Y., & Huang, P. (2020). YouTube videos on EFL college students' listening comprehension. English Language Teaching, 13 (6), 96 – 103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chun, D. M., Karimi, H., & Sañosa, D. J. (2022). Traveling by headset: Immersive VR for language learning. CALICO Journal, 39 (2), 129 – 149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language & Cognitive Processes, 2 (1), 19 – 41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, J., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149 – 210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2011). E‐learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Center for Creative Leadership.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play (25th anniversary special ed.). Jossey‐Bass Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damronglaohapan, S., & Stevenson, E. (2013). Enhancing listening skills through movie clips on YouTube. In The European Conference on Technology in the Classroom, Official Conference Proceedings (pp. 19 – 42). IAFOR.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Leo, G., Diggs, L., Radici, E., & Mastaglio, T. (2014). Measuring sense of presence and user characteristics to predict effective training in an online simulated virtual environment. Simulation in Healthcare, 9 (1), 1 – 6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182a99dd9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dhimolea, T. K., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Lin, L. (2022). A systematic review of virtual reality language learning. TechTrends, 3, 810 – 824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528‐022‐00717‐w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dooly, M., Thrasher, T., & Sadler, R. (2023). "Whoa! Incredible!": Language learning experiences in virtual reality. RELC Journal, 54, 321 – 339. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231167610</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fadillah, A. S. N., Nasrullah, N., & Rosalina, E. (2023). The use of watching Youtube videos for acquiring students' listening comprehension. IJEBP (International Journal of Educational Best Practices) (Online), 7 (1), 92 – 104. https://doi.org/10.31258/ijebp.v7n1.p92‐104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feyten, C. M. (1991). The power of listening ability: An overlooked dimension in language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 75 (2), 173 – 180. https://doi.org/10.2307/328825</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005). Second language listening: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox Tree, J. E. (1999). Listening in on monologues and dialogues. Discourse Processes, 27 (1), 35 – 53.</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> Gao, L., Wan, B., Liu, G., Xie, G., Huang, J., & Meng, G. (2021). Investigating the effectiveness of virtual reality for culture learning. International Journal of Human‐Computer Interaction, 37 (18), 1771 – 1781. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1913858</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8 (1), 8 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2003.10.016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goh, C. C. M. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension problems. System, 28 (1), 55 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346‐251X(99)00060‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners' perspective. System, 34 (2), 165 – 182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruber, A., Canto, S., & Jauregi‐Ondarra, K. (2023). Exploring the use of social virtual reality for virtual exchange. ReCALL, 35 (3), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000125</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> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R. (2024). High‐immersion virtual reality for pragmatics development. In C. A. Chapelle, N. Taguchi, & D. Kadar (Eds.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (2nd ed.). Wiley‐Blackwell.</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. (2022). Motivation and reading in high‐immersion virtual reality. 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. 208 – 213). Research‐publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.61.1460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Gruber, A. (2023a). An experimental study on reading in high‐immersion virtual reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55 (2), 541 – 559. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Gruber, A. (2023b). The impact of high‐immersion virtual reality on foreign language anxiety when speaking in public. Smart Learning Environments, 10 (46). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561‐023‐00263‐9</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 (pp. 124 – 129). Research‐publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.26.824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Ye, Y. (2023). Listening tasks in virtual reality: A pilot study. In B. Bédi, Y. Choubsaz, K. Friðriksdóttir, A. Gimeno‐Sanz, S. Björg Vilhjálmsdóttir, & S. Zahova (Eds.), Short papers from EUROCALL 2023, CALL for all Languages ‐ EUROCALL 2023 Short Papers. University of Iceland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelsen, B. (2009). Teaching EFL to the iGeneration: A survey of using YouTube as supplementary material with college EFL students in Taiwan. Call‐EJ Online, 10 (2), 1 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klaassen, R. G., & De Graaff, E. (2001). Facing innovation: Preparing lecturers for English‐medium instruction in a non‐native context. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26 (3), 281 – 289.</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> Lampropoulos, G., & Kinshuk. (2024). Virtual reality and gamification in education: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research & Development, 1 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423‐024‐10351‐3</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 (2), 539 – 562.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, A. (2019). Using virtual reality to test academic listening proficiency. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 19 (4), 688 – 712.</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), 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000353</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, P. (2022). Developing an intelligent tool for computer‐assisted formulaic language learning from YouTube videos. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 34 (2), 185 – 200. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344021000252</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> Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225 – 236.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E., & Pilegard, C. (2014). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pre‐training, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 316 – 344). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morishima, Y. (2013). Allocation of limited cognitive resources during text comprehension in a second language. Discourse Processes, 50 (8), 577 – 597. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.846964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oppong, F. B., & Agbedra, S. Y. (2016). Assessing univariate and multivariate normality. A guide for non‐statisticians. Mathematical Theory Modeling, 6 (2), 26 – 33.</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> Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (6), 785 – 797. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petersen, G. B., Petkakis, G., & Makransky, G. (2022). A study of how immersion and interactivity drive VR learning. Computers and Education, 179, 104429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinto, D., Peixoto, B., Krassmann, A., Melo, M., Cabral, L., & Bessa, M. (2019). Virtual reality in education: Learning a foreign language. In Á. Rocha, H. Adeli, L. Reis, & S. Costanzo (Eds.), World conference on information systems and technologies (pp. 589 – 597). Springer.</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> 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> Silviyanti, T. M. (2014). Looking into EFL students' perceptions in listening by using English movie videos on YouTube. Studies in English Language and Education, 1 (1), 42 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6 (6), 603 – 616. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603</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., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Chun, D., & Sadler, R. (2023). Virtual reality: "Awesome", "OK", or "not so good" for language learning? In B. Bédi, Y. Choubsaz, K. Friðriksdóttir, A. Gimeno‐Sanz, S. Björg Vilhjálmsdóttir, & S. Zahova (Eds.), CALL for all languages—EUROCALL 2023 short papers. https://doi.org/10.4995/EuroCALL2023.2023.16948</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, F., & Amrhein, J. (2016). Equivalence tests. In SAS Global Forum 2016 Content Advisory Team (Ed.), SAS Global Forum 2016 Conference (pp. 1 – 9). SAS Institute Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yaacob, A., Amir Amir, A. S., Asraf, R. M., Mohd Yaakob, M. F., & Zain, F. M. (2021). Impact of YouTube and video podcast on listening comprehension among young learners. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15 (20), 4 – 19. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i20.23701</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, X. (2013). Foreign language listening anxiety and listening performance: Conceptualizations and causal relationships. System, 41 (1), 164 – 177.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Yongluan Ye and Regina Kaplan‐Rakowski</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref186"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1427261
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Exploratory Study on Practising Listening Comprehension Skills in High-Immersion Virtual Reality
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yongluan+Ye%22">Yongluan Ye</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Regina+Kaplan-Rakowski%22">Regina Kaplan-Rakowski</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6769-7784">0000-0002-6769-7784</externalLink>)
– 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(4):1651-1672.
– 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: 22
– 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="%22Chinese%22">Chinese</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Listening+Comprehension%22">Listening Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Difficulty+Level%22">Difficulty Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjet.13481
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-1013<br />1467-8535
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Holding learners' attention is challenging, especially when they are asked to listen to long passages. High-immersion virtual reality (VR) can immerse learners in listening tasks, even in such complex languages as Chinese. This exploratory study examined the effect of VR on 43 Chinese language learners' listening comprehension, enjoyment, sense of presence, and cognitive load. Participants were self-selected into two groups without knowing the purpose of the study or the details of their activity. The experimental group (n[subscript 1] = 23) experienced an interactive multimedia story in VR, and the comparison group (n[subscript 2] = 20) watched a screencast video recording of the same story. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) indicated that VR may have a positive effect on the development of listening skills. Compared with the video group, the VR group had significantly higher listening comprehension scores, reported significantly more enjoyment and sense of presence, and reported experiencing less cognitive load. Thus, the findings suggest that VR could be used as a pedagogical tool to enhance foreign language listening skills.
– 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: EJ1427261
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1427261
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjet.13481
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 1651
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Computer Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Chinese
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Listening Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Difficulty Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Exploratory Study on Practising Listening Comprehension Skills in High-Immersion Virtual Reality
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yongluan Ye
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Regina Kaplan-Rakowski
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              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: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1