View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Impact of High-Immersion Virtual Reality and Interactivity on Vocabulary Learning

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Impact of High-Immersion Virtual Reality and Interactivity on Vocabulary Learning
Language: English
Authors: Regina Kaplan-Rakowski (ORCID 0000-0002-6769-7784), Tricia Thrasher
Source: British Journal of Educational Technology. 2025 56(6):2647-2670.
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: 24
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Computer Simulation, Technology Uses in Education, Instructional Effectiveness, Interaction, Vocabulary Development, Second Language Learning, Laptop Computers, Student Attitudes
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13603
ISSN: 0007-1013
1467-8535
Abstract: Virtual reality (VR) has been gaining prominence in education, with its interactive capabilities continually expanding. This quantitative study (N = 91) tested the educational effectiveness of high-immersion VR (HiVR) versus low-immersion VR (LiVR) and the impact of interactivity on vocabulary learning. The between-subjects portion of this study compared foreign language vocabulary learning using HiVR headsets and traditional laptops (LiVR). Multivariate analyses of covariance revealed that although the vocabulary scores of learners using HiVR were higher than the scores of learners using LiVR, the difference was not statistically significant. The within-subjects portion of this study tested the impact of the interaction with virtual objects representing the target vocabulary. Although students reported enjoying the interactive aspects of the experience, the interactivity did not significantly impact learning outcomes in either HiVR or LiVR. These findings have practical and theoretical implications about how different degrees of immersion and interactivity influence vocabulary learning and retention. The study is relevant for scholars and language teachers, as well as curriculum and VR application designers.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1486239
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE0vMlVFrAinBGIT8Mx4UXvAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJqXlYQ5Vt-y9vXozAIBEICBm6eqvzA6MXE-9Y22xcLOa8F5XfZ9bW8iam7uXm1_VXp4AEW7OMhwcZCHdTGIV43FLlf7M7kFvC-mx4_XqOxtqjRjaMkTflN4cTo90jyqVTB22E8pDwkpcaby2WKywdgofYnduzji56fyH1yQQudCaA5Z2LXAxGu36vBLoqN1QwtZ5E4DAO_aIm6kQwubiHkpw5tvz9uvxIuXfM4p
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188606189;58i01nov.25;2025Oct14.06:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188606189-1">The impact of high‐immersion virtual reality and interactivity on vocabulary learning </title> <p>Virtual reality (VR) has been gaining prominence in education, with its interactive capabilities continually expanding. This quantitative study (N = 91) tested the educational effectiveness of high‐immersion VR (HiVR) versus low‐immersion VR (LiVR) and the impact of interactivity on vocabulary learning. The between‐subjects portion of this study compared foreign language vocabulary learning using HiVR headsets and traditional laptops (LiVR). Multivariate analyses of covariance revealed that although the vocabulary scores of learners using HiVR were higher than the scores of learners using LiVR, the difference was not statistically significant. The within‐subjects portion of this study tested the impact of the interaction with virtual objects representing the target vocabulary. Although students reported enjoying the interactive aspects of the experience, the interactivity did not significantly impact learning outcomes in either HiVR or LiVR. These findings have practical and theoretical implications about how different degrees of immersion and interactivity influence vocabulary learning and retention. The study is relevant for scholars and language teachers, as well as curriculum and VR application designers. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic? High‐immersion virtual reality (HiVR) offers contextualized vocabulary learning through interacting with objects.Vocabulary is essential for language learning.Research on interaction with virtual objects has received little attention.What this paper adds? It investigates the impact of VR on vocabulary learning.It explores the effect of object interactivity on vocabulary learning.It shows that VR improves vocabulary learning and retention regardless of object interaction.Implications for practice and/or policy Our main implication is that VR can be beneficial for vocabulary retention.Students using HiVR and low‐immersion VR (LiVR) make comparable learning gains.Practitioners should create VR activities that capitalize on the immersive features of the technology while keeping cognitive demands manageable.</p> <p>Keywords: high‐immersion virtual reality; immersive learning; interactivity; low‐immersion virtual reality; vocabulary learning</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Vocabulary is an essential component of language acquisition (Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref1">47</reflink>]). Without sufficient vocabulary in their linguistic repertoire, learners are unlikely to communicate adequately (Nation, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>]). Language scholars have long researched the impact of different learning methods on vocabulary mastery (Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref3">47</reflink>]). Traditional vocabulary learning strategies include the keyword method (Shapiro & Waters, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref4">48</reflink>]), rote memorization (Sagarra & Alba, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref5">41</reflink>]), flashcards (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Loranc‐Paszylk, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]), and semantic mapping (Liu, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref7">29</reflink>]). All these methods may be effective, depending on the context, duration, and type of learners involved. However, methods that rely on mechanical repetition (e.g., flashcards) may be effective at the expense of learners' engagement and enjoyment. These methods also often fail to teach new vocabulary in context, which can lead to learners being unable to retain and apply their acquired knowledge in future situations. Language scholars, therefore, need to continue searching for learning approaches that are both engaging and effective long term.</p> <p>One technology that has increasingly garnered interest among Computer‐Assisted Language Learning (CALL) researchers due to its potential to provide engaging and enjoyable learning experiences is virtual reality (VR). VR can be divided into two sub‐categories: low‐immersion VR (LiVR) and high‐immersion VR (HiVR; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref8">19</reflink>]). With LiVR, a user sees the virtual environment on a 2D screen in front of them (e.g., via a desktop monitor or tablet) and typically interacts with it using a keyboard and mouse. Conversely, with HiVR, a user is fully immersed in '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="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>], p. 552) or a VR headset. The user typically interacts with the HiVR environment using VR controllers which provide haptic feedback and a more embodied learning experience (Sadler & Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref10">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previous research on both LiVR and HiVR has argued that these environments can be beneficial for language learning, as they provide immersive, context‐rich experiences that help learners more deeply engage with the language (Chun et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]; Sadler, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref12">39</reflink>]). However, since 2019, research specifically on HiVR and language learning has been growing (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>]; Parmaxi, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref14">37</reflink>]), with several studies revealing a beneficial impact of HiVR on vocabulary learning (Afadil, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>]; Chen & Yuan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]; Fuhrman et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>]; Lai & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref18">25</reflink>]; Legault et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]; Tai et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref20">52</reflink>]). The positive results stem from the ability of HiVR to facilitate vocabulary learning in a highly immersive context, which can promote the development of neural connections between words and their corresponding object representations, thus promoting long‐term retention (Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]). Moreover, learners can physically interact with objects in HiVR, which has been hypothesized to improve vocabulary learning and recall (Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref22">30</reflink>]). However, learning in HiVR, compared with LiVR, may be accompanied by increased cognitive load or distractions present within the environment that can negate the benefits learners might otherwise gain (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref24">36</reflink>]). Additionally, because HiVR technology is still relatively new to most users, they may encounter technical challenges that may further increase cognitive load and detract from the learning experience.</p> <p>Despite HiVR being a promising platform for vocabulary learning, until 2025, studies have been largely conducted with small sample sizes and did not compare identical HiVR and LiVR experiences that would isolate the impact of HiVR on vocabulary learning (Afadil, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>]; Chen & Yuan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>]; Hartfill et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>]; Legault et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]). Research examining the role of object interaction in vocabulary learning has also been scarce (Fuhrman et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]; Legault et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref30">27</reflink>]; Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref31">30</reflink>]). This study addressed both of these methodological shortcomings by examining the impact of HiVR compared with LiVR on vocabulary learning and the impact of interactivity with objects on vocabulary learning.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-3">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188606189-4">Vocabulary learning theories</hd> <p>The two main approaches to second language (L2) vocabulary learning are intentional and incidental learning (Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref32">46</reflink>]). Intentional learning typically refers to traditional learning methods when students study explicitly, for example, using flashcards or word lists. Incidental learning happens more naturally via encountering words in new situations, watching movies or conversing with others (Nation, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref33">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>HiVR has been theorized to be an advantageous learning environment for incidental vocabulary acquisition due to its ability to foster embodied cognition and interactive learning, which aligns with principles of situated and sociocultural learning (Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]). Indeed, in Chen and Yuan's ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref35">8</reflink>]) proposed theoretical framework for VR‐based vocabulary learning (Figure 1), the researchers argue that there are three key components of VR that improve vocabulary learning and retention: situated learning, immersive learning and sociocultural learning.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01nov25/bjet13603-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13603-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Theoretical framework for virtual reality‐based vocabulary learning (Chen & Yuan, [8])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Situated learning aligns with the notion that language is best acquired in authentic environments, allowing learners to apply new vocabulary in realistic, context‐rich settings, whereas immersive learning increases their engagement and deeper cognitive processing while doing so (Chen & Yuan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref36">8</reflink>]). Sociocultural learning, rooted in Vygotsky's theory of social interaction as central to cognitive development, emphasizes the mediating role of interaction, both with peers and virtual objects, in facilitating language acquisition (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref37">57</reflink>]). These theoretical underpinnings suggest that certain affordances of VR—such as embodied interaction and contextual immersion—can lead to better vocabulary learning and retention (Chen & Yuan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref38">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further theories focus exclusively on the role of object interaction in vocabulary learning. For example, Mathias and von Kriegstein ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref39">33</reflink>]) propose the idea of 'multimodal enrichment', which is 'the belief that the integration of complementary sensory and motor information into the learning experience [...] can enhance learning outcomes by approximating real‐world environments' (p. 81). According to the researchers, when learners are exposed to new words in various formats (e.g., hearing the word while making a corresponding gesture that represents the word), stronger neural pathways are formed, and learners are able to better remember and retrieve new vocabulary.</p> <p>Paivio's dual coding theory supports this idea by arguing that a linguistic item consists of both a verbal (e.g., a lexical item) and nonverbal code (e.g., a corresponding visual representation of said lexical item) and that memory is enhanced if a learner is exposed to both codes (Paivio & Csapo, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref40">35</reflink>]). A more contemporary theory—4E cognition—also purports that cognition is embodied, embedded, enactive, and extended (Barsalou, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>]; Jusslin et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref42">17</reflink>]), emphasizing the importance of context and interaction in the learning process. An affordance of HiVR is that learners can physically interact and manipulate objects in the virtual space as they would in corresponding real‐world environments. This element of physical interaction may enhance vocabulary learning and retention in ways that LiVR environments cannot.</p> <p>Macedonia et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref43">30</reflink>]) contrast the ways one learns words in their first language (L1)—through embodiment and interacting with the surrounding world—and the traditional, and often less successful, methods learners apply when learning words in their L2 (e.g., flashcards). Evidence from neuroscience research suggests that learners acquire new vocabulary better when it is accompanied by movement or gestures because it creates sensorimotor brain networks with the new words (Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]). Accordingly, HiVR technology presents opportunities for this sensorimotor stimulation (Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref45">30</reflink>]), as learners can interact with virtual environments and the objects within them, mirroring real‐world interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-6">Virtual reality</hd> <p>Both HiVR and LiVR are immersive. However, as their respective names indicate, the degree of immersion varies between them (Figure 2). HiVR fully immerses users in a 360° experience, blocking out real‐world surroundings and offering omnidirectional visuals and sound. LiVR immerses users via only their two‐dimensional (2D) computer screens, which can lead to distractions by real‐world stimuli and lessen the degree of immersion experienced (Kaplan‐Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref46">18</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01nov25/bjet13603-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13603-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Low‐immersion VR (LiVR) versus high‐immersion VR (HiVR)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>LiVR and HiVR provide different degrees of presence and embodiment. While <emph>presence</emph> refers to a user's subjective perception of being physically present in the virtual environment (Slater, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref47">49</reflink>]), embodiment is the degree to which users feel their virtual avatars represent their physical selves (Guy et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>]). Both presence and embodiment impact users' interactions and experiences within the virtual space.</p> <p>LiVR and HiVR also differ in the degree of interactivity that they provide. In the current study, the term interactivity was operationalized as the extent to which learners can engage with the virtual environment through direct manipulation of objects. In LiVR, interactivity is primarily achieved via traditional input methods, such as mouse and keyboard interactions, while in HiVR, it is typically facilitated through hand controllers and haptic feedback systems (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref49">11</reflink>]). The extent to which learners can interact with objects in LiVR and HiVR environments varies. While learners in LiVR are typically limited to simple interactions that involve manipulating objects by clicking on them with a mouse, in HiVR learners can physically grab, move, and manipulate objects using complex, natural gestures, mirroring real‐life interactions and enhancing embodied learning. Although these discrepancies may seem negligible, research has systematically documented their varying effects on learning outcomes (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref50">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref51">21</reflink>]; Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref52">32</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan‐Rakowski, 2024), enjoyment (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]), sense of presence (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref54">20</reflink>]; Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]), cognitive load (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref57">20</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref58">60</reflink>]) and other aspects that may be instrumental for learners' cognitive and affective development.</p> <p>Research on the cognitive effectiveness of VR‐assisted language learning (VRALL) surged around 2019 (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>]), with studies indicating that learning in HiVR can improve grammatical accuracy (Xie et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref60">58</reflink>]), pragmatic skills (Taguchi, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref61">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref62">51</reflink>]), reading (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref63">20</reflink>]), listening (Ye & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref64">60</reflink>]), and speaking skills (Dooly et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref65">12</reflink>]; Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref66">53</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref67">54</reflink>]; Xie et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref68">58</reflink>]; Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref69">59</reflink>]). Extensive research has also shown that VR benefits learners' affective factors, specifically helping them cope with foreign language anxiety (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref70">21</reflink>]; Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref71">53</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref72">54</reflink>]; York et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref73">61</reflink>]), increasing engagement (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref74">20</reflink>]; Liaw, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref75">28</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref76">60</reflink>]) and motivation (Xie et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref77">58</reflink>]; York et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref78">61</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-8">Virtual reality and vocabulary learning</hd> <p>Language scholars have examined the impact of HiVR on vocabulary learning (Afadil, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>]; Chen & Yuan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref80">8</reflink>]; Fuhrman et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref81">13</reflink>]; Lai & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref82">25</reflink>]; Legault et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref83">27</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref84">36</reflink>]; Tai et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref85">52</reflink>]). Two types of common research designs have been employed to compare learning: HiVR against traditional learning methods (e.g., flashcards, lectures) and HiVR against learning in LiVR when the learning content was identical. Within research comparing HiVR with traditional approaches, the majority showed HiVR to provide better learning outcomes due to the contextualized learning experience afforded by HiVR environments. For example, Legault et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref86">27</reflink>]) conducted a study (<emph>N</emph> = 64) comparing vocabulary learning in HiVR with vocabulary learning using traditional flashcards. They found that HiVR yielded better learning outcomes and attributed these findings to the fact that learners acquired the new words in the context in which they would later be used.</p> <p>Afadil ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref87">1</reflink>]) compared the vocabulary scores of 32 middle‐school learners who played the HiVR game <emph>House of Languages</emph> with those of 32 students who learned new words via traditional methods, finding higher vocabulary gains in the HiVR group. Chen and Yuan ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref88">8</reflink>]) compared 15 university‐level participants learning Mandarin vocabulary in HiVR with 15 students learning the same vocabulary following a traditional textbook‐based teacher‐lecture approach. The HiVR group both learned and retained significantly more vocabulary than the control group. The authors argued that this outcome was due to the ability of HiVR to provide authentic, immersive learning contexts that engage students effectively.</p> <p>Contrasting findings were reported by Hartfill et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref89">15</reflink>]), who conducted a study with 29 participants comparing vocabulary learning via a HiVR game modelled after the popular HiVR game <emph>Beat Saber</emph> with the traditional flashcard approach. The HiVR group had a lower recognition and recall rate compared with the flashcard group, which the researchers attributed to the higher cognitive load that likely accompanied learning to navigate within the game. Despite these initial findings, these studies did not compare identical HiVR and LiVR learning experiences, which control for the effectiveness of HiVR. Consequently, the research design of these studies precluded the definitive attribution of observed learning gains made to HiVR over alternative instructional strategies.</p> <p>A few studies have compared identical HiVR and LiVR learning experiences. Papin and Kaplan‐Rakowski  ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref90">22</reflink>]) studied vocabulary learning with 63 participants across three conditions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>) a HiVR group who studied annotated vocabulary on 360° pictures, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref92">2</reflink>) a LiVR group who did the same activity on a computer and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref93">3</reflink>) a control group who studied the same vocabulary via PowerPoint. Learners were therefore exposed to the identical learning content, but the viewing modality was manipulated. The LiVR group received significantly higher posttest scores than the HiVR and control groups. Similar to Hartfill et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref94">15</reflink>]), Papin and Kaplan‐Rakowski attributed the HiVR group's lower scores to a higher degree of cognitive load from using the headsets.</p> <p>Furthermore, Tai et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref95">52</reflink>]) conducted a study with 49 adolescent learners and found that learners who interacted within the HiVR language learning application <emph>Mondly</emph> learned words better than those learners who watched a 2D video of the HiVR activity being played. This outcome may stem from the HiVR group actively interacting with the language content, while the control group passively viewed it. Finally, Lai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref96">25</reflink>]) examined the effects of HiVR and LiVR gaming on 30 high school students' vocabulary learning. Two groups of 15 students both played a game, <emph>VR Demigod</emph>, using either a HiVR or a LiVR device. Both groups showed vocabulary gains, and no statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed on an immediate posttest. However, a delayed posttest revealed that the HiVR group retained significantly more vocabulary. Although most research supports the hypothesis that HiVR helps students learn vocabulary better than other methods, more research is needed comparing identical HiVR and LiVR experiences with a larger number of participants in a classroom context.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-9">Interactivity in VR</hd> <p>The impact of interactivity on vocabulary learning in HiVR has been tested in only three research studies (Fuhrman et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref97">13</reflink>]; Legault et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref98">27</reflink>]; Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref99">30</reflink>]). In Legault et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref100">27</reflink>]), participants learned 60 Mandarin Chinese words in HiVR. One half of those words was learned in a virtual zoo with minimal interaction (i.e., participants could click on animals). The other half was learned in a virtual kitchen with a higher degree of interaction (i.e., participants could pick up and move objects using their hand controllers). Participants identified the kitchen vocabulary (i.e., the interactive approach) significantly more accurately.</p> <p>Similarly, Fuhrman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref101">13</reflink>]) conducted a study with 45 adult participants using HiVR to learn 40 Finnish words across three research conditions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref102">1</reflink>) participants only seeing the object (no movement), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref103">2</reflink>) participants making an irrelevant movement while seeing the object and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref104">3</reflink>) participants performing a movement that represented the object. Results showed that participants learned the words better when they were accompanied by a relevant movement. However, as Macedonia et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref105">30</reflink>]) noted, a limitation of both of these studies is that object interaction was conducted through button‐press actions on a controller, not physical body movement, and that more accurate conclusions about the impact of movement on vocabulary learning could be drawn if the researchers had used HiVR devices with controllers that allow for more embodied actions.</p> <p>Finally, Macedonia et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref106">30</reflink>]) conducted a study to understand the impact of physically grasping a visual representation of an object on vocabulary learning. Adult participants (<emph>N</emph> = 46) learned vocabulary in three conditions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref107">1</reflink>) an audio‐visual condition with written and spoken words, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref108">2</reflink>) an audio‐visual observation condition with written and spoken words accompanied by an image of the object, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref109">3</reflink>) an audio‐visual observation‐grasping condition with learners reaching out and grasping the object. Seeing the object (condition 2) benefited all learners, but grasping the object (condition 3) was especially beneficial for low‐aptitude learners. This finding led Macedonia et al. to conclude that grasping virtual objects can foster L2 word retention. Drawing from the findings of these three studies, the current study aimed to assess whether grasping and interacting with representative objects in HiVR environments benefited students' learning and retention.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-10">Study rationale and research questions</hd> <p>Although previous studies suggest that HiVR is beneficial for vocabulary learning, several research gaps remain. First, earlier research has methodological limitations. For example, existing studies have used relatively small sample sizes, which limit the generalizability of their findings. Moreover, most studies compared a HiVR intervention with traditional, lecture‐based learning, making it difficult to tease apart the impact of HiVR from simply a different pedagogical approach. The current study addresses these gaps by having a larger sample size of 91 participants and comparing identical HiVR and LiVR learning experiences.</p> <p>Moreover, only three studies examined the role of interactivity (Fuhrman et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref110">13</reflink>]; Legault et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref111">27</reflink>]; Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref112">30</reflink>]) despite interactivity being an integral component of the theories underpinning vocabulary acquisition (Barsalou, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref113">4</reflink>]; Jusslin et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref114">17</reflink>]; Paivio & Csapo, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref115">35</reflink>]). Furthermore, in the existing research (Fuhrman et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref116">13</reflink>]; Legault et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref117">27</reflink>]), object interaction was conducted through button‐press actions on a controller, not physical body movement, leading to a gap in research that tests theories of how embodied learning impacts vocabulary learning (Barsalou, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref118">4</reflink>]; Jusslin et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref119">17</reflink>]; Paivio & Csapo, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref120">35</reflink>]). Specifically, further investigation is needed into how HiVR devices, which enable more extensive physical movement via hand controllers, influence vocabulary learning. Our study addresses these research gaps by answering two research questions.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Research Question 1 (RQ1): <emph>Is there a significant difference in the effect of HiVR on vocabulary learning compared with LiVR?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Research Question 2 (RQ2): <emph>Is there a significant impact of interactivity with objects on vocabulary learning?</emph></item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188606189-11">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188606189-12">Project overview</hd> <p>This study emerged from a large‐scale, longitudinal study investigating the cognitive and affective aspects of learning in VR (Thrasher et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref121">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref122">56</reflink>]). With funding from Meta Platforms, Inc., the large‐scale study involved distributing 500 Meta Quest 2 headsets throughout 12 predominantly underserved high schools in the United States and evaluating their impact on language learning. As part of the larger study, this study was conducted in one high school to examine the impact of VR on learning vocabulary.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-13">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 91 beginner and intermediate learners of French from a rural high school in Texas, USA. Participants' ages ranged from 13 to 18 (<emph>M</emph> = 15.65), with 60.5% identifying as male and 39.5% as female. None of the participants were native or heritage speakers of French. The typical duration of French studies for participants varied between 1 and 2 years.</p> <p>All students were regular technology users, primarily using Chromebooks as their main classroom tool. None of the students were VR users earlier in the school term. However, by the time of this study, they all received extensive VR training. No students reported having any issues using VR. Following IRB approval, consent was obtained from all participants and their parents. No compensation was offered as the activity was a part of a regular class.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-14">Study design</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188606189-15">Data analysis</hd> <p>Data analysis was done using SAS® Studio, release: 3.81 (Basic Edition). Upon checking the assumptions, a series of multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) were conducted to answer the research questions. The study adopted two types of research designs. To answer RQ1, a between‐subjects experimental design was used in which students were randomly divided into two groups. The experimental group used HiVR (i.e., Meta Quest 2 headsets) and the control group used LiVR (i.e., Chromebooks) to complete the vocabulary activities. Although the students were initially distributed equally between the groups, the experimental group (<emph>n</emph><subs>1</subs> = 32) ultimately became substantially smaller than the control group (<emph>n</emph><subs>2</subs> = 62) due to logistical constraints during the participant allocation process that were beyond our control. This imbalance was accounted for by using statistical methods robust for unequal group sizes.</p> <p>To answer RQ2, a within‐subjects design was used. All students (<emph>N</emph> = 91) learned the same number of French words. Seventeen (<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref123">17</reflink>) of these words were interactive and 11 were noninteractive. Only concrete words were included. Counterbalancing techniques were employed to correct for potential bias associated with sequencing (Isaac & Michael, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref124">16</reflink>]) of the interactive and noninteractive words presentation. Specifically, the word lists were divided into two sets (Set A and Set B), and the presentation order was alternated across participants to ensure that any learning advantage was not simply due to the sequence of exposure. Following this approach helped control for order effects, such as fatigue or practice, ensuring that differences in learning outcomes could be attributed to the (non)interactivity of the words rather than the order of presentation.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-16">VR learning platform</hd> <p>Both LiVR and HiVR students completed the vocabulary learning activity in IMMERSE (<ulink href="http://www.immerse.com">www.immerse.com</ulink>), a VR platform designed for language learning that can be accessed either via a VR headset or a web browser. In IMMERSE, students can directly interact with their classmates and instructor in over 40 different environments, ranging from a shopping centre to a doctor's office. All of these environments include 3D objects that students can virtually grab, manipulate, and interact with. For example, in IMMERSE's shopping centre (Figure 3), students can pick up a shopping basket, put items from the store in it, check out at the register, a and pay by putting a credit card into the card reader.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01nov25/bjet13603-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13603-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Shopping centre scene in IMMERSE." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Several research studies have been conducted on the IMMERSE platform, with CALL researchers largely finding that IMMERSE improves students' engagement (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref125">26</reflink>]; Thrasher, Kaplan‐Rakowski, Ovsiannikova et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref126">55</reflink>], Thrasher, Kaplan‐Rakowski, Chun [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref127">56</reflink>]), motivation (Saito, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref128">45</reflink>]), confidence (Satake & Obari, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref129">43</reflink>]), anxiety (Saito, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref130">44</reflink>]; Satake & Obari, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref131">42</reflink>]), vocabulary learning and retention (Bonner et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref132">6</reflink>]), and speaking abilities (Dooly et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref133">12</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref134">26</reflink>]). These benefits have been found on both the HiVR and LiVR versions of the platform.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-18">Vocabulary activity design</hd> <p>The need for counterbalancing required making two different versions of the experiment. Both versions had the same word count, and that number was then divided into two sets: Set A and Set B. Set A had interactive vocabulary, and Set B had noninteractive vocabulary.</p> <p>First, we identified all interactive objects available in the virtual shopping scene. This process yielded a list of 58 items that represented the target concrete nouns. Second, criteria were set to filter out words that were either too easy to learn or too difficult to represent using objects. Following Papin and Kaplan‐Rakowski  ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref135">22</reflink>]), target vocabulary items were required to be concrete French nouns, above the basic level of French, able to convey the meaning of an object, and lack cognate connections with their English equivalents. This identification process yielded a list of 28 target words (see the list in Appendix A). Third, following Kaplan‐Rakowski et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref136">22</reflink>]), we equally distributed the words to be included in Set A and Set B. To do that, we confirmed that each set had comparable numbers of one‐syllable, two‐syllable, and three‐syllable words. Last, because French nouns are either masculine or feminine, we ensured that the words with the same gender were equally distributed.</p> <p>Once the list of filtered words was created, a panel of three French‐language experts (including the French teacher) further verified content validity and criterion validity by confirming that the target words were at the appropriate level and covered a suitable range of the subject matter. We also confirmed that the choice of content was selected to diminish the risk of floor or ceiling effects.</p> <p>Next, students completed a vocabulary learning activity in the virtual shopping centre. This process involved five steps: vocabulary exploration, object scanning, interaction with objects, word repetition, and vocabulary retention. See Appendix D for details.</p> <p>Both the experimental and control groups completed this activity in a similar manner, albeit the experimental group had a more immersive, embodied experience because they were using HiVR. Figure 4 shows the experimental group completing the task in their physical classroom. Figures 5 and 6 were taken from the user's viewpoint and show examples of what students saw in their respective HiVR and LiVR experiences. In Figure 5, the user is interacting with the scene via virtual hands, manipulated using controllers, and in Figure 6, users are interacting with the scene via their computer trackpad or mouse.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01nov25/bjet13603-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13603-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Classroom view of students completing activity in high‐immersion virtual reality." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01nov25/bjet13603-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13603-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Experimental (high‐immersion virtual reality) group scanning and grabbing an object." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01nov25/bjet13603-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13603-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Control (low‐immersion virtual reality) group scanning and grabbing an object." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188606189-22">Data collection methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188606189-23">Instruments</hd> <p>To measure participants' knowledge of the target words, five online tests were administered: a screening productive pretest (T1), a productive posttest (T2), a receptive posttest (T2MC), a delayed productive posttest (T3), and a delayed receptive posttest (T3MC). Students were allotted up to 10 minutes to complete the tests, which were conducted in a classroom setting under the supervision of the teacher. The expert panel specializing in criterion validity meticulously designed the scoring process to ensure consistency, with correct answers being clearly defined and validated during the development of the scoring rubric.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-24">Pretest (T1)—Screening test</hd> <p>Prior to the vocabulary learning activity, students completed a productive pretest serving as a screening test. The reason for that test was to account for possible prior vocabulary knowledge of the target words. Students were presented with a list of 28 words in French with two answer options (see Appendix B for a sample). If students thought they knew what a particular word meant, they would give the English translation. If students did not know the word, they were prompted to select 'No'. For each correct translation, one (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref137">1</reflink>) point was assigned. For each incorrect or lacking translation, zero (0) points were assigned. No partial scoring was applied. The maximum possible points for the pretest were 28. The Cronbach's Alpha for T1 was reported as 0.64, indicating moderate internal consistency.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-25">Immediate posttests (T2 and T2MC)</hd> <p>The posttest consisted of two parts. The first part was productive and identical to the pretest. Only the sequence of the questions was randomized. The second part tested students' receptive vocabulary knowledge and consisted of 28 multiple‐choice questions. Four answer options were available. The first three were words from the target vocabulary list. The last option was 'I don't know', to diminish the risk of guessing (see Appendix C for a sample) .</p> <p>The correct selection of the answer resulted in receiving one (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref138">1</reflink>) point. The incorrect selection or the selection of the 'I don't know' option resulted in receiving zero (0) points. No partial scoring was applied. The maximum possible score received on the posttest was 28 for each part. Cronbach's Alpha for T2 was 0.73, reflecting good internal consistency, whereas T2MC achieved a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.90, demonstrating excellent internal consistency. To answer RQ1, the full test with 28 items was scored. To answer RQ2, items corresponding to interactive words (18 items) and noninteractive words (11 items) were scored separately.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-26">Delayed posttest (T3 and T3MC)</hd> <p>The delayed posttest was administered a week after the intervention to test students' retention of the target vocabulary. This test was identical to the immediate posttest. The only difference was the sequence with which the students encountered the questions. Cronbach's Alpha for T3 was 0.86, indicating excellent internal consistency, while for T3MC, it was 0.92, reflecting outstanding internal consistency.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-27">RESULTS</hd> <p>Two main goals drove this study: to determine the impact of HiVR on vocabulary learning compared with LiVR and to explore the effect of interactivity with objects while learning vocabulary.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-28">Research question #1</hd> <p>To answer RQ1 (<emph>Is there a significant difference in the effect of HiVR on vocabulary learning compared with LiVR?</emph>), we used receptive and productive measures immediately after the intervention (T2) and with a one‐week delay (T3). The MANCOVA calculations with instructional strategy (HiVR vs. LiVR) as the independent variable were conducted for each of the dependent variables. Pretest scores were used as a covariate. The descriptive statistics for RQ1 are presented in Table 1 and the MANCOVA outputs are presented in Table 2. To facilitate a comparison of results across RQ1 and RQ2, we report all test scores in terms of the percentage of items answered correctly.</p> <p>1 TABLE Descriptive statistics for high‐immersion virtual reality (HiVR) and low‐immersion virtual reality (LiVR) test scores.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Construct</th><th align="left">HiVR</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">LiVR</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></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">T1</td><td align="char" char=".">10</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">36</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td><td align="char" char=".">10</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">43</td><td align="char" char=".">61</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">50</td><td align="char" char=".">29</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">61</td><td align="char" char=".">62</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2MC</td><td align="char" char=".">34</td><td align="char" char=".">23</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">75</td><td align="char" char=".">29</td><td align="char" char=".">33</td><td align="char" char=".">21</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">90</td><td align="char" char=".">62</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T3</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td><td align="char" char=".">15</td><td align="char" char=".">37</td><td align="char" char=".">74</td><td align="char" char=".">32</td><td align="char" char=".">17</td><td align="char" char=".">17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">89</td><td align="char" char=".">43</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T3MC</td><td align="char" char=".">39</td><td align="char" char=".">25</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">82</td><td align="char" char=".">32</td><td align="char" char=".">29</td><td align="char" char=".">24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td><td align="char" char=".">43</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: T1 = pretest; T2 = immediate productive posttest; T2MC = immediate receptive posttest; T3 = delayed productive posttest; T3MC = delayed receptive posttest. Test scores are reported as the percentage of items answered correctly out of 28 total items.</p> <p>2 TABLE MANCOVA output for between‐subjects effects (high‐immersion virtual reality (HiVR) vs. low‐immersion virtual reality (LiVR).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Construct</th><th align="left">III sum of squares</th><th align="left"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="left">Mean square</th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">Partial <italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">T2</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.97</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2MC</td><td align="char" char=".">0.72</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">0.72</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T3</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.37</td><td align="char" char=".">0.72</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T3MC</td><td align="char" char=".">17.79</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">17.79</td><td align="char" char=".">3.55</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>: MANCOVA = multivariate analyses of covariance; T1 = pretest; T2 = immediate productive posttest; T2MC = immediate receptive posttest; T3 = delayed productive posttest; T3MC = delayed receptive posttest.</p> <p>As reported in Table 1, using immediate posttest productive measures (i.e., T2 scores), the mean score for vocabulary studied in HiVR was 14% correct and the mean score associated with LiVR was 14% correct. That is, LiVR participants scored almost the same as HiVR participants. The MANCOVA reported in Table 2 revealed this effect to be not significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref139">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref140">89</reflink>)</subs> = 0.04, <emph>p</emph> = 0.97, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.00). Using immediate posttest receptive measures (i.e., T2MC scores) reported in Table 1, the mean score for vocabulary studied in HiVR was 34% correct and the mean score associated with LiVR was 33% correct. That is, LiVR participants performed 1% worse than HiVR participants. The MANCOVA reported in Table 2 revealed this effect to be not significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref141">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref142">89</reflink>)</subs> = −0.40, <emph>p</emph> = 0.69, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.01).</p> <p>Regarding the delayed posttest productive measures, the mean score for vocabulary studied in HiVR was 20% and the mean score associated with LiVR was 17% correct. That is, LiVR participants performed 3 percentage points worse than HiVR participants. The MANCOVA revealed this effect to be not significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref143">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref144">73</reflink>)</subs> = −0.37, <emph>p</emph> = 0.72, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.01). The analysis of the delayed receptive posttest showed that the mean score for vocabulary studied in HiVR was 39% correct and the mean score associated with LiVR was 29%. That is, LiVR participants performed 10% worse than HiVR participants, with the MANCOVA indicating this difference approached statistical significance (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref145">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref146">73</reflink>)</subs> = 3.55, <emph>p</emph> = 0.06, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.08) (medium effect).</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-29">Research question #2</hd> <p>To answer RQ2 (<emph>Is there a significant impact of interactivity with objects on vocabulary learning?</emph>), the study employed receptive and productive measures immediately after the intervention (T2) and with a 1‐week delay (T3). All study participants' performance was measured with regard to their recall and retention of interactive and noninteractive words. The pretest scores (T1) served as a covariate. In the analysis, we employed a model in which HiVR and LiVR were combined to test the impact of interactivity in either type of VR. The descriptive statistics for RQ2 are presented in Table 3 and the MANCOVA outputs are presented in Table 4.</p> <p>3 TABLE Descriptive statistics for high‐immersion virtual reality (HiVR) and low‐immersion virtual reality (LiVR) combined.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Construct</th><th align="left">Interactive</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">Noninteractive</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (%)</th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic> (%)</th><th align="left"><italic>Min</italic> (%)</th><th align="left"><italic>Max</italic> (%)</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (%)</th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic> (%)</th><th align="left"><italic>Min</italic> (%)</th><th align="left"><italic>Max</italic> (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">T1</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td><td align="char" char=".">10</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">53</td><td align="char" char=".">91</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td><td align="char" char=".">9</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">27</td><td align="char" char=".">91</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2</td><td align="char" char=".">15</td><td align="char" char=".">12</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">71</td><td align="char" char=".">91</td><td align="char" char=".">12</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">55</td><td align="char" char=".">91</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2MC</td><td align="char" char=".">33</td><td align="char" char=".">22</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">88</td><td align="char" char=".">91</td><td align="char" char=".">32</td><td align="char" char=".">23</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">91</td><td align="char" char=".">91</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T3</td><td align="char" char=".">18</td><td align="char" char=".">16</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">88</td><td align="char" char=".">75</td><td align="char" char=".">19</td><td align="char" char=".">19</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">90</td><td align="char" char=".">75</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T3MC</td><td align="char" char=".">33</td><td align="char" char=".">25</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td><td align="char" char=".">75</td><td align="char" char=".">33</td><td align="char" char=".">26</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td><td align="char" char=".">75</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note</emph>: T1 = pretest; T2 = immediate productive posttest; T2MC = immediate receptive posttest; T3 = delayed productive posttest; T3MC = delayed receptive posttest. Test scores are reported as the percentage of items answered correctly out of 17 interactive items and 11 noninteractive items.</item> <item>4 TABLE MANCOVA output for within‐subjects effects (interactive vs. noninteractive) with high‐immersion virtual reality (HiVR) and low‐immersion virtual reality (LiVR) combined.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Construct</th><th align="left">III sum of squares</th><th align="left"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="left">Mean square</th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">Partial <italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">T2</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T2MC</td><td align="char" char=".">0.79</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">0.79</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T3</td><td align="char" char=".">4.21</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">4.21</td><td align="char" char=".">2.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T3MC</td><td align="char" char=".">1.73</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">1.73</td><td align="char" char=".">0.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.59</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>: MANCOVA = multivariate analyses of covariance; T1 = pretest; T2 = immediate productive posttest; T2MC = immediate receptive posttest; T3 = delayed productive posttest; T3MC = delayed receptive posttest.</p> <p>In the immediate posttest productive tests, the mean score for interactive words was 15% correct and the mean score for noninteractive words was 12% correct. Scores of interactive words were 3 percentage points higher than scores of noninteractive words. The MANCOVA revealed this effect to be not significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref147">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref148">91</reflink>)</subs> = 0.16, <emph>p</emph> = 0.69, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.00). Posttest productive measures indicated the mean score for interactive words was 33% correct and the mean score for noninteractive words was 32% correct. Scores of interactive words thus were 1 percentage point higher than scores of noninteractive words. The MANCOVA revealed this effect to be not significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref149">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref150">91</reflink>)</subs> = 2.15, <emph>p</emph> = 0.14, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.00).</p> <p>In the delayed posttest productive tests, the mean score for interactive words was 18% correct and the mean score for noninteractive words was 19% correct. Scores of interactive words were 1 percentage point higher than scores of noninteractive words. The MANCOVA revealed this effect to be not significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref151">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref152">91</reflink>)</subs> = 0.16, <emph>p</emph> = 0.69, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.02). Delayed posttest productive measures indicated the mean score for interactive words was the same (<emph>M</emph> = 33%). The MANCOVA revealed this effect to be not significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref153">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref154">91</reflink>)</subs> = 0.30, <emph>p</emph> = 0.58, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.00).</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-30">DISCUSSION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188606189-31">The effectiveness of HiVR and LiVR is comparable, but HiVR helps more with retention</hd> <p>The first research question aimed to contribute to the existing research examining how two learning modalities, HiVR and LiVR, impact vocabulary learning (Lai & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref155">25</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref156">36</reflink>]; Tai et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref157">52</reflink>]). Our study found that the vocabulary scores of the HiVR group were either comparable to or higher than those of the LiVR group on all four measures, regardless of the test type (receptive and productive) and test timing (immediate and delayed). Although statistically the differences were insignificant, one specific finding stands out. That is, the scores of the HiVR group on the delayed receptive posttest were marginally significantly higher compared with the LiVR, suggesting that HiVR can potentially benefit long‐term retention.</p> <p>These findings are consistent with existing research that has compared identical HiVR to LiVR experiences. Lai and Chen ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref158">25</reflink>]) found no statistically significant differences on the immediate posttest of students engaging with the same learning materials using either HiVR or LiVR, but differences emerged in delayed tests. That is, when the learning content is identical, HiVR and LiVR provide comparable learning gains. However, learners using HiVR significantly outperform those using LiVR in delayed posttests vocabulary retention. This finding supports the VR‐based vocabulary learning theory proposed by Chen and Yuan ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref159">8</reflink>]), which argues that a higher level of immersion can increase engagement and, in turn, lead to deeper cognitive processing that can further solidify learning (see also, Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref160">30</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-32">Interactivity may have a minimal impact on learning</hd> <p>The second research question tested whether interactivity with objects representing the target vocabulary had a significant impact on learning. Prior research (Fuhrman et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref161">13</reflink>]; Legault et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref162">27</reflink>]; Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref163">30</reflink>]) has found that interactivity involving physical movement or manipulation of objects can enhance learning outcomes. Additionally, several theoretical frameworks—such as multimodal enrichment (Mathias & von Kriegstein, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref164">33</reflink>]), dual coding theory (Paivio & Csapo, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref165">35</reflink>]) and 4E cognition (Barsalou, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref166">4</reflink>]; Jusslin et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref167">17</reflink>])—highlight the importance of interaction in vocabulary acquisition, suggesting that meaningful interaction during the learning process strengthens neural pathways, improving both memory and retrieval of new vocabulary. In our study, interactivity with objects neither added nor diminished learning outcomes, thereby diverging from the expectation set by previous research. Several factors could have contributed to this discrepancy. First, the intervention was relatively short, which could have limited the time needed for students to fully benefit from the interaction‐based learning experience.</p> <p>Second, the cognitive load associated with navigating the VR environment (An & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref168">2</reflink>]; Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref169">3</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref170">36</reflink>]) could have offset the potential benefits of interactivity, as students might have focused more on controlling or exploring the environment rather than processing the learning content. Specifically, given the brief duration of the intervention, students might have had insufficient time to master the controls needed to naturally interact with the corresponding objects in the scene. Consequently, the cognitive load required to simultaneously learn new vocabulary and navigate the VR environment may have hindered students' ability to fully benefit from the interactive features.</p> <p>The absence of a significant effect could also stem from the nature of the content, as vocabulary learning may not inherently benefit from physical interactivity with virtual objects. Learning new words primarily involves memory and semantic association (Nation, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref171">34</reflink>]; Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref172">47</reflink>]), which are processes that rely more on cognitive engagement than on manipulating objects. Interactivity might even divert attention from the primary goal of learning vocabulary, especially if the tasks are not directly tied to meaningful language use. Moreover, physical interactivity may be more useful for procedural tasks, such as performing actions or following steps, rather than tasks focused on linguistic comprehension.</p> <p>Last, although students were able to pick up objects in both the HiVR and LiVR experiences, the interactions they could perform with them were not particularly deep or complex. Therefore, these actions may not have provided the level of symbolic, embodied action needed to establish neural pathways that reinforce vocabulary learning.</p> <p>Based on these findings, we suggest that the effectiveness of the interactivity in VR may be nuanced, depending on many factors, including individual differences, the ease of navigating the VR environment (cognitive load), distraction, language aptitude, and the specific haptic system used in the VR environment. For example, it is possible that learners only reap the benefits of interactivity if the interactions they perform are indeed representative of the corresponding lexical item they are learning. Moreover, learners may require a longer exposure to HiVR to acclimate to the system and manage the high cognitive load often associated with first‐time use of HiVR systems (An & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref173">2</reflink>]; Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref174">3</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref175">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Cognitive load associated with HiVR may decrease as users gain experience using it. Research in cognitive psychology and VR‐based learning suggests that as learners become more familiar with VR navigation and interface conventions, extraneous cognitive load diminishes, allowing more cognitive resources to be allocated to learning tasks (Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref176">31</reflink>]; Plass et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref177">38</reflink>]). Multi‐session VR implementations help learners master interacting with virtual environments, which can reduce distractions and facilitate engagement with the learning content (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref178">11</reflink>]). Therefore, when implementing VR in educational settings, repeated and scaffolded exposure may be necessary for mitigating initial cognitive demands and unlocking the full instructional potential of immersive learning (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref179">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-33">Practical and theoretical implications</hd> <p>While previous research consistently documents that HiVR yields beneficial affective outcomes (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref180">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref181">21</reflink>]; Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref182">53</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref183">60</reflink>]), less consistent evidence exists regarding the impact of HiVR on cognitive outcomes. Depending on the learning objectives, HiVR varies in its effectiveness. It seems that when learning objectives are placed on a higher level of Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom & Krathwohl, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref184">5</reflink>]), the use of VR seems more effective. For example, the potential of HiVR to bring students who are physically distant together in the same virtual space supports social language learning and tasks that require co‐construction of meaning among participants. However, when learners need to focus on objectives placed on the lower level of Bloom's taxonomy, such as memorization of facts (e.g., Kaplan‐Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref185">18</reflink>]) or memorizing new vocabulary items (e.g., Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref186">36</reflink>]), the distraction and cognitive load associated with HiVR may be overwhelming and ultimately negate learning gains (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref187">3</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref188">36</reflink>]). Therefore, language practitioners wanting to use HiVR with their students should ensure that HiVR tasks take full advantage of its affordances. This is especially critical given the challenges that still accompany widespread adoption of HiVR in language education (e.g., high costs, scalability issues, and accessibility barriers; An & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref189">2</reflink>]; Khukalenko et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref190">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several theoretical frameworks argue that HiVR is advantageous for vocabulary learning, as it creates opportunities for situated, immersive, and sociocultural learning (Chen & Yuan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref191">8</reflink>]; Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref192">30</reflink>]). These affordances of HiVR can be helpful in the development of neural connections between words and their corresponding object representations and promote long‐term retention (Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref193">30</reflink>]). The results of the current study support this claim, as those students who used HiVR performed better on the delayed posttest and therefore retained more of the words they learned.</p> <p>Moreover, object interaction in virtual environments allows for multimodal enrichment, or the integration of complementary sensory and motor information, that may lead to better retention and retrieval of new vocabulary words (Macedonia et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref194">30</reflink>]; Mathias & von Kriegstein, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref195">33</reflink>]; Paivio & Csapo, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref196">35</reflink>]). Our findings did not support this assumption, as students learned vocabulary equally well with noninteractive word representations as with those they could manipulate in VR. An explanation for this finding could be that the interactions students could perform with a given object were not representative enough of the word meaning to form stronger neural connections that allow for better retention and retrieval of new words. For most of the objects that students could interact with, the interaction was limited to simply picking up the virtual object and did not allow students to use the object in a natural way that would have fostered more embodied learning. Another explanation could be that more participants completed the activity in LiVR compared with HiVR. While the LiVR experience afforded the ability to interact with objects, this was done through simply clicking on the object and did not require the user to perform any physical movement that would be associated with the object. Moving forward, an important focus would be to examine how the degree of possible interaction (e.g., simply picking up a virtual cell phone vs. using that cell phone to call someone) impacts vocabulary acquisition.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-34">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>Among the five main limitations of this study, the first one pertains to the methodological constraints. While we provide sufficient quantitative analyses, a lack of qualitative analyses precludes detailed elaboration of the interpretation of the findings. Future studies should incorporate qualitative approaches, such as think‐aloud protocols, semi‐structured or focus group interviews, and systematic observations of video recordings of students' HiVR and LiVR interactions to develop a more holistic understanding of how these environments contribute to learning.</p> <p>Second, participants had relatively short exposure to the target vocabulary. Although we extended the vocabulary lesson to two sessions, effective vocabulary learning typically requires more repetition than two occasions. Importantly, repetition is essential both for the vocabulary rehearsal, the learning activity itself, and the use of relatively novel technology (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref197">11</reflink>]). Follow‐up studies should consider longitudinal approaches expanding over weeks or months during which students would learn vocabulary in a systematic way.</p> <p>Third, we had limited control and monitoring over what the participants were doing while inside IMMERSE. Consequently, no guarantee exists that everybody followed all the instructions and completed the entire vocabulary activity. That is, the incomplete acquisition of some vocabulary might not necessarily be attributable solely to the modality used (HiVR vs. LiVR) or the interactivity. The learners' insufficient exposure to the entire range of the target words could be a factor.</p> <p>The fourth limitation pertains to the scope of the study. Language learning is multifaceted, and vocabulary acquisition encompasses only one type of knowledge that learners must acquire. Future studies could expand upon the current research in HiVR and LiVR, studying other facets of learning, including grammar, syntax, pronunciation, and the ability to use language interactively and appropriately in different contexts.</p> <p>Fifth, while this study included 91 participants, exceeding the sample sizes of many prior VR‐based language learning studies, dividing participants into HiVR and LiVR groups to address RQ1 reduced the effective sample size. A post hoc power analysis revealed low statistical power for detecting small effects, suggesting the study may have been underpowered to identify subtle differences. However, RQ2 employed a within‐subject design, which reduced noise from between‐participant variability and provided greater statistical power for that analysis. Future studies with larger, more diverse samples are recommended to validate and extend these findings. In addition, future research on learning and practicing vocabulary in VR could incorporate adaptive systems leveraging generative AI (Cha et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref198">7</reflink>]; Chun et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref199">9</reflink>]; Thrasher et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref200">56</reflink>]), as well as multimodal data collection using biometrics (eg, heart rate variability) to gain insights into participants' emotional responses (Thrasher, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref201">53</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-35">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>HiVR has been theorized to be an advantageous learning environment for vocabulary acquisition primarily because it facilitates embodied and interactive learning experiences, which are essential for deep cognitive processing. These affordances of VR align with theoretical frameworks of vocabulary learning, such as multimodal enrichment (Mathias & von Kriegstein, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref202">33</reflink>]), which emphasizes the role of sensorimotor engagement in learning, and situated learning (Chen & Yuan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref203">8</reflink>]), which highlights the importance of context‐rich environments for knowledge retention.</p> <p>However, existing research testing these theories is limited to studies with small sample sizes and research designs that are unable to adequately test how HiVR impacts learning. This study addressed both of these methodological shortcomings by conducting a study with 91 participants comparing identical HiVR and LiVR learning experiences and the impact of interactivity with objects on vocabulary learning. Findings revealed that although students who used HiVR retained vocabulary better than their LiVR counterparts, object interactivity did not make a significant difference in learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-36">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>The authors extend their gratitude to the French teacher, Matt Phillips, for his openness to integrating research activities into the classroom curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-37">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>Funding for this research was provided by Meta Platforms Inc. and IMMERSE.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-38">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The second author, Dr. Tricia Thrasher, is the Director of Research at <emph>IMMERSE</emph>, which is a company involved in VR‐assisted language learning. While this affiliation has provided valuable resources for the study, all efforts were made to ensure the research was conducted objectively and without undue influence from commercial interests.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-39">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-40">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. Proper procedures were followed as established by the Institutional Review Board of the first author's institution. Informed consent was obtained both verbally and in writing.</p> <hd id="AN0188606189-41">A APPENDIX TARGET WORDS AND THEIR ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Target words</th><th align="left">English translations</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">un arrosoir</td><td align="left">a watering can</td></tr><tr><td align="left">un avion</td><td align="left">a plane</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une boîte</td><td align="left">a box</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une brosse</td><td align="left">a brush</td></tr><tr><td align="left">un canard</td><td align="left">a duck</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une casserole</td><td align="left">a saucepan</td></tr><tr><td align="left">un cerceau</td><td align="left">a hula hoop</td></tr><tr><td align="left">un chapeau</td><td align="left">a hat</td></tr><tr><td align="left">des ciseaux</td><td align="left">scissors</td></tr><tr><td align="left">des classeurs</td><td align="left">binders</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une clé</td><td align="left">a key</td></tr><tr><td align="left">un collier</td><td align="left">a necklace</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une couronne</td><td align="left">a crown</td></tr><tr><td align="left">des écouteurs</td><td align="left">headphones</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une épée</td><td align="left">a sword</td></tr><tr><td align="left">des étagères</td><td align="left">shelves</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une manette</td><td align="left">a remote controller</td></tr><tr><td align="left">un marteau</td><td align="left">a hammer</td></tr><tr><td align="left">un panier</td><td align="left">a basket</td></tr><tr><td align="left">un pantalon</td><td align="left">pants</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une perceuse</td><td align="left">a drill</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une poêle</td><td align="left">a frying pan</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une poubelle</td><td align="left">a trash can</td></tr><tr><td align="left">du savon</td><td align="left">soap</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une sonnaille</td><td align="left">a bell</td></tr><tr><td align="left">un stylo</td><td align="left">a pen</td></tr><tr><td align="left">un tapis</td><td align="left">a rug</td></tr><tr><td align="left">une valise</td><td align="left">a suitcase</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188606189-42">B APPENDIX SAMPLE PRODUCTIVE TEST ITEMS</hd> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01nov25/bjet13603-gra-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13603-gra-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188606189-44">C APPENDIX SAMPLE RECEPTIVE TEST ITEMS</hd> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01nov25/bjet13603-gra-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13603-gra-0002.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188606189-46">D APPENDIX DESCRIPTION OF THE VOCABULARY ACTIVITY</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Vocabulary exploration: The teacher called out a vocabulary item in English, and the students had 1 minute to locate that item within the VR shopping centre. That task required students to use their observational skills and spatial awareness to find the objects.</item> <p></p> <item> Object scanning: Once the students found the object, they used an object scanner located in their virtual backpack to scan the item. Scanning the object triggered an audio playback that pronounced the name of the object in French. This step helped students associate the object with its corresponding French word.</item> <p></p> <item> Interaction with objects: Some objects (17 out of 28) within the virtual shopping centre could be interacted with. Participants were encouraged to interact with the objects, if possible, further engaging their senses and providing a more immersive experience.</item> <p></p> <item> Word repetition: After scanning and interacting (if applicable) with the objects, the students were prompted to repeat the French word associated with the object. This step reinforced their vocabulary learning and pronunciation.</item> <p></p> <item> Vocabulary retention: Throughout the activity, the students were encouraged to remember the French words and their corresponding English meanings. This activity was to help students with vocabulary retention.</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0188606189-47"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref15" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Afadil, 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="bib2" idref="ref92" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> An, Y., & Kaplan‐Rakowski, R. (2024). Examining adults' enjoyment, challenges, cognitive load in informal learning with high‐immersion virtual reality. TechTrends, 68 (1), 1118 – 1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528‐024‐00999‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref23" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baceviciute, S., Terkildsen, T., & Makransky, G. (2021). Remediating learning from non‐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="bib4" idref="ref41" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barsalou, L. W. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition, 3 (1), 31. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref184" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. In M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, & D. R. Krathwohl (Eds.), Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref132" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bonner, E., Lege, R., & Frazier, E. (2023). Teaching CLIL courses entirely in virtual reality: Educator experiences. CALICO Journal, 40 (1), 45 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.22676</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref198" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cha, E., Ye, Y., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Choubey, P. (2025). Personalized adaptive language learning in high‐immersion virtual reality. IGI.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref16" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, C., & Yuan, Y. (2023). Effectiveness of virtual reality on Chinese as a second language vocabulary learning: Perceptions from international students. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2192770</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref199" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chun, D., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Ovsiannikova, U., Thrasher, T., & Yuan, Y. (2025). AI‐mediated high‐immersion virtual reality for language learning. In Y. J. Lan, G. Qi, & D. Chun (Eds.), AI‐mediated language education in the metaverse era. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chun, D., Karimi, H., & Sañosa, D. J. (2022). Traveling by headset: Immersive VR for language learning. CALICO Journal, 39 (2), 129 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.21306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dhimolea, T. K., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Lin, L. (2022). A systematic review of research on high‐immersion virtual reality for language learning. TechTrends, 66, 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 (2), 321 – 339. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231167610</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuhrman, O., Echerling, A., Friedmann, N., Tarrasch, R., & Raz, G. (2020). The moving learner: Object manipulation in virtual reality improves vocabulary learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37 (3), 672 – 683. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guy, M., Normand, J.‐M., Jeunet‐Kelway, C., & Moreau, G. (2023). The sense of embodiment in virtual reality and its assessment methods. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4 (1), 1 – 23. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1141683</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartfill, J., Gabel, J., Neves‐Coelho, D., Vogel, D., Rathel, F., Tiede, S., Ariza, O., & Steinicke, F. (2020). Word Saber: An effective and fun VR vocabulary learning game. In B. Preim, A. Nürnberger, & C. Hansen (Eds.), MuC '20: Proceedings of the Conference on Mensch und Computer (pp. 145 – 154). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3404983.3405517</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Isaac, S. & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation: A collection of principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and evaluation of studies in education and the behavioral sciences. EdITS/Educational and Industrial Testing Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jusslin, S., Korpinen, K., Lilja, N., Martin, R., Lehtinen‐Schnabel, J., & Anttila, E. (2022). Embodied learning and teaching approaches in language education: A mixed studies review. Educational Research Review, 37, 100480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100480</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Cockerham, D., & Ferdig, R. E. (2023). The impact of sound and immersive experience on learners using high‐immersion virtual reality and tablet: A mixed‐methods study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55 (4), 1560 – 1582. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13417</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 Proceedings of the Innovation in Language Learning International Conference 2019 (pp. 552 – 555). Pixel.</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., Lin, L., & Wojdynski, T. (2022). Learning vocabulary using 2D pictures is more effective than using immersive 3D stereoscopic pictures. International Journal of Human‐Computer Interaction, 38 (4), 299 – 308. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1938394</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Loranc‐Paszylk, B. (2017). Students' views on the helpfulness of multimedia components of digital flashcards in mobile‐assisted vocabulary learning. In K. Borthwick, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL in a climate of change: Adapting to turbulent global conditions—Short papers from EUROCALL 2017 (pp. 170 – 176). Research‐Publishing.Net.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khukalenko, I., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., An, Y., & Iushina, V. (2022). Teachers' perceptions of using virtual reality technology in classrooms: A large‐scale survey. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (8), 11591 – 11613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐022‐11061‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lai, K.‐W. K., & Chen, H.‐J. H. (2023). A comparative study on the effects of a VR and PC visual novel game on vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36 (3), 312 – 345. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1928226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, S. M., Yang, Z., & Wu, J. G. (2023). Live, play, and learn: Language learner engagement in the immersive VR environment. Education and Information Technologies, 29 (1), 10529 – 10550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐023‐12215‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Legault, J., Zhao, J., Chi, Y. A., Chen, W., Klippel, A., & Li, P. (2019). Immersive virtual reality as an effective tool for second language learning. Language, 4 (13), 1 – 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4010013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liaw, M.‐L. (2019). EFL learners' intercultural communication in an open social virtual environment. Educational Technology & Society, 22 (2), 38 – 55. https://<ulink href="http://www.jets.net/collection/published‐issues/22%5f2">www.jets.net/collection/published‐issues/22%5f2</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, P. L. (2016). Mobile English vocabulary learning based on concept‐mapping strategy. Language Learning & Technology, 20 (3), 128 – 141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macedonia, M., Mathias, B., Lehner, A. E., Reiterer, S. M., & Repetto, C. (2023). Grasping virtual objects benefits lower aptitude learners' acquisition of foreign language vocabulary. Educational Psychology Review, 35 (115), 1 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐023‐09835‐0</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 (1), 225 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathias, B. & von Kriegstein, K. (2023). Enriched learning: Behavior, brain, and computation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27 (1), 81 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.10.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1969). Concrete image and verbal memory codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80 (2), 279 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0027273</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), 1108 – 1135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2068613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parmaxi, A. (2020). Virtual reality in language learning: A systematic review and implications for research and practice. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (1), 172 – 184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1765392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sadler, R. (2012). Virtual worlds for language learning: From theory to practice. Peter Lang AG.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sadler, R., & Thrasher, T. (2023). XR: Crossing reality to enhance language learning. CALICO Journal, 40 (1), i – xi. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.25517</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sagarra, N., & Alba, M. (2006). The key is in the keyword: L2 vocabulary learning methods with beginning learners of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (2), 228 – 243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐4781.2006.00394.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Satake, Y., & Obari, H. (2021). Effects of virtual reality use on Japanese English learners' foreign language anxiety. In ICERI2021 Conference Proceedings (pp. 1234 – 1240). https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.0358</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Satake, Y. & Obari, H. (2022). The effects of English conversation lessons in virtual reality on the confidence of Japanese learners of English. In ICERI2022 Conference Proceedings (pp. 6737 – 6744). https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2022.1700</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saito, Y. (2021). Potential and challenges of VR in English education. KOTESOL Proceedings 2021 (pp. 127–136). https://koreatesol.org/sites/default/files/pdf_publications/KOTESOL.Proceedings.2021.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saito, Y. (2023). Students' creation of VR English lessons: Adopting a constructivist approach. Japanese Journal of Global Informatics, 3 (1), 31 – 47. https://researchmap.jp/Yukie_Saito/published_papers/41961966?lang=en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12 (3), 329 – 363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave MacMillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro, A. M. & Waters, D. L. (2005). An investigation of the cognitive processes underlying the keyword method of foreign vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 9 (2), 129 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805LR151OA</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, M. (2018). Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. British Journal of Psychology, 109 (3), 431 – 433. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taguchi, N. (2021). Application of immersive virtual reality to pragmatics data collection methods: Insights from interviews. CALICO Journal, 38 (1), 181 – 201. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.41136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taguchi, N. (2022). Immersive virtual reality for pragmatics task development. TESOL Quarterly, 56 (1), 308 – 335. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tai, T. Y., Chen, H. H. J., & Todd, G. (2020). The impact of a virtual reality app on adolescent EFL learners' vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35 (4), 1 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1752735</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. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.42198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thrasher, T. (2023). Meeting in the metaverse: Language learners' insights into the affordances of virtual reality. In D. Cockerham, R. Kaplan‐Rakowski, W. Foshay, & M. Spector (Eds.), Reimagining education: Studies and stories for effective learning practices in an evolving digital society (pp. 179 – 194). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐25102‐3_17</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thrasher, T., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Ovsiannikova, U., Meyr, J., & Yuan, Y. (2024). "I can talk to Spanish speakers in Illinois!": Student perspectives on AI‐avatar role plays in virtual reality. WorldCALL2023: Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2759‐1182.2023.18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thrasher, T., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Chun, D., & Sadler, R. (2024). 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> Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie, Y., Ryder, L., & Chen, Y. (2019). Using interactive virtual reality tools in an advanced Chinese language class: A case study. TechTrends, 63 (1), 251 – 259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528‐019‐00389‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, F. C., Lo, F. Y., Hsieh, J. S., & Wu, W. C. (2020). Facilitating communicative ability of EFL learners via high‐immersion virtual reality. Educational Technology & Society, 23 (1), 39 – 49. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/26915405">www.jstor.org/stable/26915405</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ye, Y., & Kaplan‐Rakowski, R. (2024). An exploratory study on practising listening comprehension skills in high‐immersion virtual reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55 (4), 1651 – 1672. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13481</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> York, J., Shibata, K., Tokutake, H., & Nakayama, H. (2021). Effect of SCMC on foreign language anxiety and learning experience: A comparison of voice, video, and VR‐based oral interaction. ReCALL, 33 (1), 49 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344020000154</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Regina Kaplan‐Rakowski and Tricia Thrasher</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref190"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1486239
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Impact of High-Immersion Virtual Reality and Interactivity on Vocabulary Learning
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Regina+Kaplan-Rakowski%22">Regina Kaplan-Rakowski</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6769-7784">0000-0002-6769-7784</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tricia+Thrasher%22">Tricia Thrasher</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Technology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Technology</i></searchLink>. 2025 56(6):2647-2670.
– 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: 24
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– 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="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Laptop+Computers%22">Laptop Computers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjet.13603
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-1013<br />1467-8535
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Virtual reality (VR) has been gaining prominence in education, with its interactive capabilities continually expanding. This quantitative study (N = 91) tested the educational effectiveness of high-immersion VR (HiVR) versus low-immersion VR (LiVR) and the impact of interactivity on vocabulary learning. The between-subjects portion of this study compared foreign language vocabulary learning using HiVR headsets and traditional laptops (LiVR). Multivariate analyses of covariance revealed that although the vocabulary scores of learners using HiVR were higher than the scores of learners using LiVR, the difference was not statistically significant. The within-subjects portion of this study tested the impact of the interaction with virtual objects representing the target vocabulary. Although students reported enjoying the interactive aspects of the experience, the interactivity did not significantly impact learning outcomes in either HiVR or LiVR. These findings have practical and theoretical implications about how different degrees of immersion and interactivity influence vocabulary learning and retention. The study is relevant for scholars and language teachers, as well as curriculum and VR application designers.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1486239
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1486239
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjet.13603
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 24
        StartPage: 2647
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Computer Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Laptop Computers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Impact of High-Immersion Virtual Reality and Interactivity on Vocabulary Learning
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Regina Kaplan-Rakowski
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tricia Thrasher
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-1013
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-8535
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1