Educational Technology International Copyright 2020 by the Korean Society for 2020, Vol. 21, No. 2, 155-191 Educational Technology

Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review*

Hamide Kubra ALTUN Jeongmin LEE** Ewha Womans University Korea

The aim of this study was to examine the trends (e.g., the distribution of the studies by year, country, research methods, and participants’ education level) and fundamental findings [e.g., interaction in Virtual Reality (VR) environments, educational content through VR and Augmented Reality (AR) technologies, learning environment in AR, etc.] regarding immersive learning technologies such as VR and AR in English Language Teaching (ELT) between 2010 and 2019. Employing a systematic review research methodology, data was gathered from 59 academic articles published in the following databases: EBSCOhost, ERIC, Web of Science, and Taylor & Francis. The studies were analyzed using a content analysis approach, and findings demonstrated that immersive learning technologies in ELT came to prominence in 2017. Mixed methods research was the most widely employed research method. The most studied language skill was vocabulary for AR and speaking for VR. The results also revealed advantages and challenges with regards to the use of immersive learning technologies in ELT. Further analysis illustrated the findings related to characteristics of immersive learning technologies in ELT. Based on this review, research and design implications for researchers and practitioners are presented.

Keywords : Immersive learning technologies, Virtual reality, Augmented reality, English language teaching, Systematic review

* This paper is a revision of some of the thesis of the first author ** Corresponding author, [email protected]

155 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE

Introduction

With the rapidly increasing development of emerging technologies, dramatic transformations are occurring in every part of our lives, including aspects of society such as culture, the economy, and education. Technologies such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) draw the interest of many educators as they offer numerous learning opportunities and experiences for learners. These technologies promote 21st century skills (collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity) (Lambert & Cuper, 2008) and immerse learners into meaningful contexts, which can enhance the positive transfer of new information into realistic situations. Thus, all fields of education seek to keep up with these innovations. English Language Teaching (ELT) is one such field that needs to consistently offer new opportunities for learners’ self-improvement. Despite the availability of various information and communication technology (ICT) instruments and programs, teachers in ELT still continue to employ conventional teaching methods that use abstract forms of delivering information (Safar, Al-Jafar, & Al-Yousefi, 2017). Using limited resources and similar (often repetitive) activities can result in boredom and a loss of passion (Tsai, 2018), curiosity, and motivation (Taskiran, 2019) for learning among learners. The implementation of decontextualized activities in ELT means that learners are deprived of opportunities to interact in authentic environments (Lee & Park, 2019). Furthermore, they are not provided with situated learning, and interactions are restricted to lecture formats with instructors, resulting in a lack of social engagement (Shea, 2014). Immersive learning technologies including VR, AR, and MR can solve these problems as they provide learners with engaging experiences through integrated audio and visual content (Blyth, 2018). Moreover, these technologies might reduce the distinction between formal and informal learning, thereby allowing language learners to explore challenges, and to gain unexpected enjoyment and intrinsic

156 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review motivation (Taskiran, 2019). The aim of this study was to examine the trends (e.g., the distribution of the studies by year, country, research methods, and participants’ education level) and fundamental findings (e.g., interaction in VR environments, educational content through VR and AR technologies, learning environment in AR, etc.) regarding immersive learning technologies such as VR and AR in ELT between 2010 and 2019. The implementation of VR supports English language learners in several ways. First, opportunities for learners to practice English are provided in environments where communication and interaction with other learners or avatars occur (Liaw, 2019). Second, learners are provided with engaging activities that address other senses than sight and hearing, such as tactile stimuli (Chen, 2016) and kinaesthetic activities (Urun, Aksoy, & Comez, 2017). Lastly, certain conditions (such as peer pressure or new subject content) may put learners under stress. Accordingly, VR can provide a stress-free environment (especially by means of virtual characters), which helps to relieve stress and provide encouragement to use the language (Hong, Chen, & Lan, 2014). A further factor that can contribute to a stress-free learning environment is that learners can embody virtual characters (Urun et al., 2017) when they are assigned roles. The use of AR in ELT plays an essential role by facilitating contextualized learning (Taskiran, 2019) whereby learners can experience authentic input and potential opportunities to interact. Hsu (2017) report three main features of AR in situated learning for English learners: learner-centered learning rather than teacher-centered learning, learners becoming active observers controlling their learning to attain knowledge-internalization, and learners being allowed to implement the knowledge they manage in addition to producing appropriate English in realistic circumstances. Hence, AR supports situated learning, which provides learners with surroundings close to reality, all of which enhances learning effectiveness (Hsu, 2017). By providing realistic surroundings, AR has a constructive influence on being able to transfer skills obtained in a learning context to real life (Chen, 2016).

157 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE

MR implementation is quite unusual, and this may be attributed to its technical restrictions. According to Vazquez et al. (2017), contextual awareness is still constrained to “machine learning and sensor technologies, hindering the capacity for contextual affinity under certain circumstances” (p. 2177). The application they used to discover MR was WordSense, in which items may be labelled improperly or classified imprecisely. To illustrate, it is possible for cats to be categorized as mammals. Because irrelevant embeddings may be displayed on the system as actively linked content, learners may become confused. Furthermore, latency can lead to problems when there are difficulties on the network (Vazquez et al., 2017). Taking these points into consideration, this systematic review focused specifically on immersive learning technologies that utilize VR and AR. To date, research has demonstrated that immersive learning technologies contribute to academic achievement (Chen & Chan, 2019; Urun et al., 2017), enhance learning motivation (Taskiran, 2019), and engagement (Hao & Lee, 2019). Further, they capture learners’ attention (Jee, 2014), promote social skills (Wu, 2019), reduce anxiety (Hsu, 2017), promote experiential learning (Knutzen & Kennedy, 2012), and learner-centered learning environments (Hong et al., 2014; Hsu, 2019). As several studies revealed, immersive learning technologies have produced positive outcomes in ELT, suggesting that teachers and researchers need to integrate these technologies for effective learning outcomes. Hence, this paper can guide practitioners on how to implement them for better results. Systematic reviews are significant in that unmanageable amounts of information is transferred into a competent set of information so that practitioners and scholars can reach rational decisions through given data (Mulrow, 1994), which paves the way for future studies (Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2019). Furthermore, systematic reviews illustrate whether findings are confirmative and can be generalized over other contexts and samples or based on particular subcategories (Mulrow, 1994).

158 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

Literature Review

There is an increase in the integration of immersive learning technologies (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017), which results from recent mobile technologies and increasing number of mobile device owners (Statista, 2020). These technologies have come into prominence in education as well and they are investigated to reveal their learning outcomes, especially with university students as in other fields of studies (Bacca et al., 2014; Kavanagh et al., 2017; Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2019). They might be preferred since it is easier to access them (Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2019). Immersive learning technologies can be employed when the aim is to provide EFL learners an authentic learning environment to practice their speaking (Taskiran, 2019) as they are stress-free (Küçük, Yılmaz, & Göktaş 2014) and support contextualized (Lee & Park, 2019) and situated learning (Hsu, 2017). AR might be more convenient to access and implement in the sense of devices (Martin et al., 2011) because smartphones can simply enable AR technology. Additionally, mobile devices can be easily used and carried (Johnson et al., 2010) compared to heavy headsets or computers. Immersive learning technologies in ELT have several benefits such as motivation (Bacca et al., 2014; Kavanagh et al., 2017; Quintero et al., 2019), catching attention (Chen & Chan, 2019), giving enjoyment and entertainment (Lantavou & Fesakis, 2018), reducing anxiety and increasing confidence (Taskiran, 2019), improving learning achievement (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017; Bacca et al., 2014), facilitating individualized learning (Bacca et al., 2014; Kavanagh et al., 2017), and so on. However, there are also some challenges regarding these technologies such as technical/Internet-related problems (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017; Quintero et al., 2019; Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2019). No systematic review has been conducted on immersive learning technologies in the field of ELT to date, although such a review has been completed in a broader

159 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE educational context. Akçayır and Akçayır (2017) investigated AR in educational settings by reviewing 68 studies published up to 2016. The focus of the research questions was as follows: distribution of the studies across years, learner type, device type, and benefits and challenges of AR in education. According to their findings, the number of the papers increased over the past four years. With regard to learner type, the mostly preferred sample group was K-12 students. As for device type, mobile devices were largely chosen. The most commonly identified advantage was enhancing learning achievement. Lastly, usability was the most commonly reported challenge in that learners had difficulty utilizing AR. Kavanagh et al. (2017) performed a systematic review on VR integration in education by analyzing 379 papers published between 2010 and 2017. They investigated how VR was applied, the motivations for use, and what challenges were faced. They found that the foremost areas of application were constructivist pedagogy, collaboration, and gamification. In terms of motivations, the most documented benefit was boosting intrinsic motivation. Finally, the most commonly identified challenges were cost, user experience, and interactivity. While these findings have some implications, it is not possible to generalize them to specific disciplines such as ELT. Therefore, the motivation to carry out this systematic review with an emphasis on ELT was based on possible difficulties experienced by researchers and practitioners when designing learning materials, which could result in planning similar materials with previous studies. Thus, providing trends, directions, effective methods, and widespread applications can assist them in their future studies by offering practical methods. Finally, there is a need for a specific analysis regarding characteristics of VR and AR in an ELT context. To this end, the following research questions were composed based on existing systematic review studies considering application plans of immersive learning technologies in ELT context and examined for the purpose of this study:

1. What are the trends in immersive learning technologies related to ELT

160 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review research? 2. What were the key findings identified from the existing body of literature? 2.1 What were the key findings regarding the implementation of immersive learning technologies in ELT overall? 2.2 What were the key results particular to VR technology in ELT? 2.3 What were the key results particular to AR technology in ELT?

Method

Borenstein et al. (2009) defined a systematic review as specifying explicit rules that guide the search for studies (including inclusion and exclusion criteria) for analysis. Although setting these criteria can be considered subjective to an extent, mechanisms are clear as all decisions are identified distinctly (Borenstein et al., 2009). In this study, a systematic review was used, as this enables incontrollable volumes of information to be converted into an efficient set of information for practitioners and scholars. This provides data from which reasonable decisions can be made (Mulrow, 1994) and may offer grounds for future studies (Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2019). Besides, systematic reviews reveal whether findings obtained are corroborative and might be generalized in other contexts, or whether they depend on particular subcategories (Mulrow, 1994). Moreover, systematic reviews confine bias and increase reliability as well as accuracy of conclusions via obvious methods (Mulrow, 1994). Hence, the current status of immersive learning technologies in ELT was investigated to illustrate propensities, advantages, and challenges on this subject to offer an inclusive insight for future research.

Data collection

Scientific papers from 2010 to 2019 were selected for investigation. A systematic search was conducted using the following databases: Web of Science, EBSCOhost,

161 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE

ERIC, and Taylor & Francis, all of which consist of the highest number of articles regarding education (Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2019). The following keywords were utilized: augmented reality, virtual reality linked with English, English learning, EFL, ESL, language learning, and foreign language teaching.

Data analysis

A coding list was developed, adapted from the study by Cho (2018), to perform data coding. For consistency and reliability, the coding list was confirmed by a Ph.D. student studying Educational Technology with experiences of systematic review and meta-analysis studies for 2 years, a Ph.D. student mastering ELT with an experience of systematic review for 1 year, and two experts in Educational Technology. Content analysis was applied as this approach is extensively preferred for textual analyses, providing scope to compare, contrast, and categorize the data (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000). To perform qualitative systematic reviews, content analysis can be considered since it offers a flexible data analysis method if the purpose is to construct knowledge and form theory to accommodate data which are well-structured and contextualized (Finfgeld-Connett, 2014). First, the coding list was generated using Microsoft Excel to take notes on studies based on the research questions (as demonstrated in Table 1). The coding list included related information as the studies were meticulously read. Microsoft Excel was also employed for the analysis, which was specified as a systematic and iterative method to condense significant volumes of data into smaller categories according to precise coding rules (Berelson, 1952). The first research question referred to descriptive information, which is mentioned clearly in the papers. As for the second research question, detailed information about the studies was also searched. Notably, the analysis was performed in a way that one article is considered as two different studies for the article (Bonner & Reinders, 2018) which focused on both VR and AR. For instance, the article provided some practical ideas for practitioners, thus suggesting a variety of lesson activities some of which require

162 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review smartphones while others requiring computers. In this case, both smartphones and computers were counted separately.

Table 1. Subcategories of research questions Research Subcategories questions

- Distribution of the studies by year: publication years from 2010 to 2019 - Distribution of the studies by country - Research methods: qualitative, quantitative, mixed, literature review, or system 1 design - Education level of samples: pre-school, primary school, secondary school, high school, university, and other EFL/ESL students from diverse backgrounds

- Technology type: VR or AR - Studied basic language skill by technology type: speaking, listening, reading, vocabulary, etc. trends in VR and AR - Device type: smartphones, tablets, computers, head mounted display (HMD), 2.1 google cardboard, and so on - Program type: existing programs or programs that are designed and developed by researchers - Advantages and challenges of immersive learning technologies in ELT

- Interaction: whether learners interacted with real people, avatars, game characters, or virtual objects - Interaction methods: how learners interact with the VR content (e.g. visual, 2.2 audio-visual, voice, text, haptic, and body movements) - Educational content: the main purpose of VR implementation (simulation, training, access limited sources, and distance learning)

- Learning environment: whether AR had an influence on the learning environment and led to learner-centered environment - Learning by doing: if AR facilitated learning by doing in ELT or not 2.3 - AR addressing five senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste - AR type: marker-based AR, marker-less AR, or location-based AR - Educational content: the fundamental aim of the articles (communicative, collaborative, experiential, and practical) in using AR in ELT

Keywords were searched to detect articles implementing VR or AR in ELT based on the selection criteria, which resulted in 1,294 articles as illustrated in

163 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE

Figure 1. After omitting duplicates, 1,224 studies remained to be screened. The extracted articles were reviewed based on their titles and abstracts, which resulted in removing a further 328 articles as they were not related to VR or AR. Another 825 of the remaining articles were not relevant to ELT. For eligibility, the final 71 articles were then scanned. Subsequently, three studies were excluded as they were not written in English, and another three studies were removed because full text was not available. A further six articles were omitted since they give only descriptive information about VR or AR technologies and were not scientific research studies. Following this process of elimination, 59 studies remained for inclusion in this study.

Figure 1. PRISMA Flowchart

To establish inter-rater reliability, 30 out of 59 studies were randomly selected and independently coded by two researchers, one of whom was a Ph.D. student majoring in ELT. Microsoft Excel was utilized to examine two code sets to reveal the Cohen’s Kappa coefficient value, which was determined to be 0.78, indicating agreement between researchers (Viera & Garrett, 2005). Furthermore, two researchers discussed the remaining studies and reached a compromise.

164 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

Results

Trends in Immersive Learning Technologies and ELT literature

The distribution of the studies by year, country, research methods, and participants’ education level were examined to respond to research question 1. Each category is described in the following sub-sections. Also, brief information regarding each article is given in Appendix.

Distribution of the articles by year Figure 2 presents the distribution of the papers by year with regards to immersive learning technologies in ELT. A slow increase in the number of papers between 2010 and 2017 was observed followed by a significant increase after 2017. Notably, no study was published in 2011.

Figure 2. The number of the studies by year

Distribution of the studies by country Most studies examining immersive learning technologies in ELT were carried out in Taiwan (n = 17), followed by Turkey (n = 8), with a couple of studies performed in United States (n = 5), China (n = 4), Germany (n = 3), Australia (n = 3), and Korea (n = 2). The following countries only produced one article: Greece,

165 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE

Colombia, Poland, Spain, Italy, Vietnam, India, The State of Kuwait, Iran, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, Hong Kong, Japan, and United Kingdom. However, no information was provided regarding country in two studies. These results show that a wide range of countries conducted studies on immersive learning technologies in ELT.

Research methods used A mixed methods approach (n = 22) was the most commonly used research method, followed by quantitative (n = 16) and qualitative methods (n = 15). Design study (n = 2) and literature review (n = 4) were the least commonly employed research methods.

Education level of the sample It was revealed that university students (n = 26) were preferred as the sample in most studies, followed by primary school students (n = 10) and EFL/ESL learners with diverse backgrounds (n = 9). Among the remaining articles, pre-school students (n = 5) and high school students (n = 3) were chosen as the sample. The least commonly selected group was secondary school students (n = 1). Five articles did not provide information regarding the sample group.

Findings of Immersive Learning Technologies and ELT Literature

Immersive Learning Technologies in ELT The subcategories examined were as follows: technology type, studied basic language skill studied by technology type, device type, utilized program, advantages, and challenges of immersive learning technologies in ELT.

Technology type implemented The number of the studies applying AR (n = 31) was the majority, closely followed by VR (n = 27). One literature review study focused on both AR and VR.

166 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

Basic language skills studies by technology type The language skill most commonly focused on in AR studies was vocabulary (n = 16), followed by writing (n = 7), speaking (n = 6), listening (n = 4), reading (n = 4), alphabet (n = 2), culture learning (n = 1) and grammar (n = 1). Next, the most commonly studied language skill in VR papers was speaking (n = 13), followed by listening (n = 7), vocabulary (n = 6), reading (n = 2), writing (n = 2), English language arts (n = 1), aviation English (n = 1), presence (n = 1), culture learning (n = 1), collaboration (n = 1), language play (n = 1), and grammar (n = 1).

Device type utilized It was found that smartphones (n = 14) were used in most studies, closely followed by computers (n = 13). Next, HMD (n = 8), tablets (n = 6), projector accompanied with computers (n = 5), smartphones and tablets (n = 5), Google cardboards with smartphones (n = 2), and smartphones and computers (n = 1) were employed in the studies. Moreover, other devices (n = 2) were also utilized: one study employed The Microsoft Xbox Kinect console for Kinect-based gaming, and the other implemented Leap Motion Controller. However, no information was provided regarding devices in three of the studies.

Program type utilized It was found that most articles deployed an existing program (n = 41) and the remainder (n = 18) designed and developed a program for their research purposes.

Advantages of Immersive Learning Technologies in ELT Numerous benefits of immersive learning technologies in ELT were reported. The most observed benefit was the increase in the affective domains of learners (n = 135), which comprised increasing motivation (n = 35), enjoyment (n = 25), engagement (n = 24), capturing learners’ attention (n = 21), promoting an anxiety-free environment (n = 13), improving confidence (n = 10), and increasing positive attitudes toward the learning experience (n = 6). Next, enriching the

167 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE cognitive domain of learners was a commonly reported benefit, which primarily consisted of enhancing learning achievement (n = 25), developing cultural knowledge (n = 8), boosting self-regulation skills (n = 5), and fostering long term memory (n = 4). Another commonly discovered benefit was the progression of language skills (n = 40), which included advancing vocabulary (n = 11), speaking skills (n = 7), general proficiency (n = 5), listening (n = 4), grammar (n = 4), pronunciation (n = 4), reading (n = 3), and writing skills (n = 1). Subsequently, augmenting the interpersonal domain of learners was a commonly identified benefit, which consisted of increasing collaboration (n = 12), communication (n = 6), and social skills (n = 3). Regarding features of immersive technologies (n = 19), this addressed advantages such as enabling situational learning (n = 5), contextual learning (n = 4), enhancing a sense of presence (n = 4), advancing spatial/motor abilities (n = 4), and promoting embodiment of virtual characters (n = 2).

Challenges of Immersive Learning Technologies in ELT Despite the range of diverse benefits, some challenges also emerge while implementing immersive learning technologies in ELT. It was indicated that technical or Internet-related problems (n = 21) were the most frequently mentioned challenge. Next, technology-related problems (n = 15) were commonly mentioned, comprising distraction by technology, technology accessibility, heavy wearable sets, limited editing/creation opportunities, technology sickness, expenses, and privacy and security issues. Next, human-related problems (n = 13) included limited information/skills on technology, different learning style/personality, requiring extra time for adaption, and personal fears. In relation to learning domain-related problems (n = 4), cognitive load and anxiety were documented. Regarding activity related problems (n = 4), activity design problems, tiring outside activities, and activities causing boredom were included. Extra workload for teachers, being time consuming, and classroom management were noted as challenges for teachers. Moreover, some challenges

168 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review peculiar to VR and AR components such as different time zones (for global activities) and high expenses were identified for VR. In terms of AR, heavy headsets and physical fatigue in case of outside activities through location-based AR might be challenging.

Findings regarding VR technology

Interaction in VR The results showed that learners interacted with real people in most studies (n = 10), followed by avatars (n = 7). Next, there were studies in which learners interacted with virtual objects (n = 5) and game characters (n = 3). No information was provided in two studies regarding this matter.

Interaction methods It is worth noting that some articles reviewed enabled learners with more than one interaction method. Consequently, audio-visual (n = 13) was the most documented interaction method. In addition, some studies allowed learners to interact with others through voice (n = 11), namely, by talking to each other. Besides, learners were provided with only visual aids (n = 10) in some VR environments. Furthermore, learners also used texting features (n = 8) to interact with others. Moreover, in two studies, learners were allowed to control VR content with their body movements, one implementing Microsoft Xbox Kinect console for Kinect-based gaming while the other using HTC Vive VR system, together with two handheld motion controllers and two wall-mounted infrared sensors. Lastly, interacting through haptic touch was provided to learners in one study. However, three studies did not provide any information.

Educational content According to the findings, the mostly implemented VR content was training (n = 13). Subsequently, simulation (n = 6) and distance learning (n = 6) were commonly

169 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE explored VR content. Notably, using VR for limited sources to access (n = 1) was the least applied VR content. No information was detected in one article regarding this analysis.

Main results regarding AR technology

Learning environment Many articles (n = 22) revealed that the integration of AR in ELT provided learners with a learner-centered environment. Only some studies (n = 5) demonstrated a more teacher-centered environment. Nevertheless, four articles did not identify any information regarding learning environment.

Learning by doing A large number of studies (n = 19) presented opportunities for learning by doing, whereby learners were no longer just receivers of information but also participated into hands-on activities. Nevertheless, some studies (n = 8) conducted activities where hands-on activities were not provided. No information was specified in four studies on this issue.

Senses addressed Audio-visual content corresponded to the most displayed content (n = 20). There were some articles (n = 10) addressing only visual content. One article did not identify any related information. Notably, no study addressed other senses such as touch, smell, or taste.

AR type implemented The most frequently utilized AR type was marker-based AR (n = 15). Next, location-based AR (n = 8), followed by marker-less AR (n = 7) were explored in the reviewed studies. In addition, one study (Hockly, 2019) did not report any information on AR type.

170 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

Educational content The most mentioned AR content in ELT was communicative AR content (n = 18), followed by collaborative AR content (n = 9). A few studies implemented experiential AR content (n = 2). However, no article employed practical AR content. Two studies did not provide any information on educational content. Communicative AR content comprised activities where learners mostly interacted with virtual objects through their devise screens in marker-based AR or marker-less AR. In terms of collaborative AR content, learners were put into groups or pairs to complete missions or solve problems, which mainly occurred in location-based AR. As for experiential AR content, learners discovered fields to detect a variety of plants on campus or scenic spots in London for culture learning.

Discussion

In this study, 59 articles were selected through EBSCOhost, ERIC, Web of Science, and Taylor & Francis and examined with regard to their trends and findings on immersive learning technologies in ELT. According to the investigation, a slow increase in the number of articles published was revealed between 2010 and 2017. However, a significant increase was observed from 2017 onwards. The relatively recent increase in the number of articles can be attributed to the development of technology as well as the growing accessibility of these technologies. In a systematic review of AR in the context of education conducted by Akçayır and Akçayır (2017), this increase was attributed to innovations in mobile technologies along with an increase in the number of mobile device owners (Statista, 2020). Among the analyzed articles, an encouraging range of countries were reported to have conducted studies on immersive learning technologies in ELT. It is worth noting that Taiwan revealed the highest number of studies, which might be

171 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE attributed to the fact that Taiwan has come into prominence for its Information Technology industry and integrating technology into education owing to numerous startups as well as respected technology firms focusing on Technology Enabled Learning (Ferry, 2016). Many insights were gained on the topic of immersive learning technologies in ELT by means of various countries and cultures, which suggests more studies on the implementation of these immersive technologies should be conducted to keep up with the trends. This systematic review revealed that mixed methods research was the mostly employed research method, which corroborates the study of Bacca et al. (2014). This finding accords with the necessity in ascertaining the impact of immersive learning technologies implementation in ELT. The next mostly utilized research methods were quantitative and qualitative methods, indicating that there has been an effort to explore the effect of immersive learning technologies in ELT from multiple perspectives. However, more effort is required in the future considering this systematic review consists of two separate immersive technologies, VR and AR. There would have been fewer studies if these technologies were considered exclusively, suggesting that there is a lack of research for each of these subjects individually. In the investigated articles, university students were the most studied sample group, which is in line with other review studies in the literature (Bacca et al., 2014; Kavanagh et al., 2017; Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2019). A common tendency has been observed in educational technology research to target university students as the sample group (Kucuk et al., 2013). This could be because it is more convenient to access university students (Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2019). Furthermore, Garzón and Acevedo (2019) conducted a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AR systems on student learning outcomes and revealed that AR had a large effect on university level of students, but a lesser effect on primary and secondary school students. This finding is not consistent with the study conducted by Ozdemir et al. (2018), who concluded that education level showed no statistically significant difference.

172 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

In the examined articles, the most studied language skill was vocabulary. This was found to play a significant role in language learning, particularly in relation to language learning through games (Urun et al., 2017). The second common language skill studied in the articles was speaking, which is a well-chosen skill considering EFL learners do not have opportunities to practice their speaking skills and it is usually practiced via uncontextualized activities. Immersive learning technologies offer EFL learners the opportunity to practice speaking in an authentic way (Taskiran, 2019) in a stress-free environment (Küçük, Yılmaz, & Göktaş 2014) with contextualized (Lee & Park, 2019) and situated learning materials (Hsu, 2017). Thus, more effort should be made to integrate these technologies into EFL lessons. While listening was studied in several articles, there is still a need for more studies in different language skills to offer clear insights into the effective application of immersive learning technologies. This systematic review demonstrated that AR is the more commonly implemented technology, which may be because it is easier to access and apply in terms of devices (Martin et al., 2011). A smartphone would be enough to explore AR technology. In addition, it is more convenient as mobile devices are becoming easier to use and portable (Johnson et al., 2010). Conversely, heavy headsets or computers were utilized to employ VR technology. Hence, this might have challenged the users. However, VR technology is becoming more accessible as technology improves. For instance, Google cardboard (which is very economical) works with a smartphone is a convenient way for VR experience. Therefore, future studies should focus on exploring the effectiveness of VR technology in ELT as well as its challenges and advantages. This systematic review revealed the most studied language skills by the type of technology. Accordingly, speaking was the most explored language skill in VR studies. Learning a language, especially speaking skill, demands regular practice, which may not be addressed in every classroom or context. Since some kind of interaction is provided by VR through avatars, other users, or content in a virtual

173 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE environment, English learners are offered an advantageous platform to practice their speaking in a stress-free environment. Hence, teachers are encouraged to take advantage of VR to improve speaking skills of their learners in a practical and effective way. As for AR studies, the most reported language skill was vocabulary, with researchers employing AR as flashcards (Chen & Chan, 2019; Lantavou & Fesakis, 2018; Tsai, 2018) presenting 3D pictures of the vocabulary, and sometimes pronunciation as well as usage in a sentence. Furthermore, some studies designed AR games to teach vocabulary (Hsu, 2017; Hsu, 2019). Because AR integrates virtual objects into real environments, more situated and contextualized learning can be provided for learners of English. Therefore, teachers are recommended to further explore AR technology in vocabulary teaching. In the analyzed articles, smartphones were the most utilized devices to integrate these immersive technologies. It is estimated that use of smartphones will increase substantially as they become more convenient (Johnson et al., 2010). Few studies employed tablets, which might be because they are heavier to hold and carry. The findings of this study are inconsistent with earlier studies on AR technology by Akçayır and Akçayır (2017) and Quintero et al. (2019), who found that mobile devices were the most commonly utilized devices. In addition, it is worth noting that previous research on AR applications by Ozdemir et al. (2018) showed that mobile devices produced better learning outcomes regarding academic achievement compared with webcam-based devices. Mobile devices are suggested because they are economical and easy to utilize, particularly for younger students (Furió et al., 2013). This review highlighted that most studies employed an existing program. However, many studies also designed and developed their own program and evaluated how well they work for their purposes. Using an existing program might produce more reliable results. In addition, there are numerous programs that facilitate the preparation of learning content for users’ aims. However, researchers are encouraged to design their own programs as this serves their research objectives

174 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review better. A wide range of advantages of immersive learning technologies in ELT context were reported. The most mentioned advantage was learner motivation, which also substantiates other studies conducted on AR in educational settings (Bacca et al., 2014; Kavanagh et al., 2017; Quintero et al., 2019). This finding might be connected to attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction (ARSC) as a feature of the model of motivation theory proposed by Keller (2008). Accordingly, learners’ attention is drawn by dynamic features of these immersive technologies (Chen & Chan, 2019), by generating a sense of enjoyment and entertainment for users (Lantavou & Fesakis, 2018). Such immersive materials can be perceived as games that reduce anxiety and increase confidence by offering challenges, intrinsically motivating experiences, and surprising pleasure (Taskiran, 2019). Another commonly mentioned benefit was that immersive learning technologies improve learning achievement, which bears similarities with previous studies (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017; Bacca et al., 2014). This finding can be attributed to other benefits of immersive technologies such as enhancing learner motivation (Hao & Lee, 2019), learner enjoyment (Tsai, 2018), learner engagement (Hsu, 2019), interaction (Urun et al., 2017), drawing attention (Wu, 2019), and reducing anxiety (Lantavou & Fesakis, 2018). All these benefits contribute to learner achievement in that their perception towards English also improves. However, benefits such as promoting individualized learning (Bacca et al., 2014; Kavanagh et al., 2017), knowledge transfer into the real world, and social learning skills need to be explored further. Even though immersive learning technologies offer various benefits for ELT, they also pose some challenges. This review showed that the most reported challenge was technical/Internet-related problems, which is in accordance with the findings of the earlier studies by Akçayır and Akçayır (2017), Quintero et al. (2019), and Yung and Khoo-Lattimore (2019). Other main challenges and difficulties identified included distraction by technology, limited information/skills on

175 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE technology, and limited editing/creation options. This systematic review demonstrated that interaction with real people constitutes a majority in most of the articles on VR. In other words, the learners interacted with real people through text chat and/or voice chat (Knutzen & Kennedy, 2012) during their journey through VR. These interactions occurred among classmates, with native speakers, or internationally with learners of English around the world. Considering EFL learners have few opportunities to practice their English (Shea, 2014), VR technology enables them to use language to interact with others with the help of authentic oral and written inputs (Yang, Chen, & Jeng, 2010). Furthermore, several studies mentioned learners interacting with avatars, indicating a reduction of anxiety. Thus, interaction with avatars can be suggested for shy or low proficiency learners who comprise a large proportion of learners, who might feel overwhelmed if they are required to interact with real people. Therefore, teachers are encouraged to conduct an analysis of their learners’ characteristics and implement the type of interactions that apply best to their particular condition. A variety of interaction methods were detected, ranging from audio-visual to kinesthetic methods. The most evident interaction method was audio-visual, which provides sufficient immersive experiences for learners. Nevertheless, learners may involve themselves in the virtual environment better if they interact with the content kinesthetically or control contents through their voice (Urun et al., 2017). However, devices that provide such immersive experiences might be very expensive or have limited access. This is why policy makers are encouraged to initiate programs that offer engaging immersive experiences for learners, especially those who study at underprivileged schools. This systematic review indicated that VR content was used for training purposes in most articles, referring to the application with the intention of facilitating practical transferrable skills. The main aim was to enable learners to practice their English skills so that they can apply those skills in real life. For instance, Hong et al. (2014) designed animated pedagogical agents through which learners could practice

176 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review their communication skills using a question and answer method integrated into a storytelling activity. Nevertheless, VR is suggested for use for other purposes such as simulation or to access limited sources. This enables users to discover things that they may not experience easily because of high expense, limited access, or infeasibility. Therefore, teachers might utilize VR more: for example, by taking their learners on a virtual travel abroad to practice situational conversations. The investigated studies showed that AR turned conventional teacher-centered learning environments into more learner-centered learning environments, which was indicated in previous studies (Kerawalla et al., 2006; Küçük et al., 2014). In learner-centered environments, learners are longer be dependent on their teachers for information; instead, they become active participants in the learning process by controlling their pace or collaborating with others to achieve learning objectives (Lantavou & Fesakis, 2018; Lee & Park, 2019). Teachers should take this significant characteristic of AR into account and design their AR lessons to allow active participation. Next, this review revealed that AR technology allows students to learn by doing and gain experience with the help of hands-on activities, which echoed earlier studies (Tekedere & Göke, 2016). Learners were given problems to solve, missions to achieve, and/or roles to behave in a certain way. Accordingly, they were engaged in experiential learning. Thus, AR technology should be used not only to motivate or entertain learners for learning, but also to provide them with as many ways as possible to increase their engagement with contents, which is in line with Fauth (1988), who claimed 90% of what people listen, see, say, and do is learnt. This systematic review examined which senses were addressed by AR in the reviewed articles. Consequently, it was found that AR addresses sight and hearing in most of the articles. None of the studies provided experiences to address touch, smell, or taste, since these would require a higher quality of technology making it expensive and limited to implement. However, Tekedere and Göke (2016) pointed out that the more senses addressed, the more powerful the learning experience.

177 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE

Besides, Rodrigues et al. (2019) indicated that more studies focus on more sensory AR systems to provide better immersive experiences for users. Hence, teachers are encouraged to implement AR applications that trigger learners’ senses as much as possible. In the investigated papers, marker-based AR was the mostly utilized AR type, which may be because they are easier to design, especially compared to location-based AR. Location-based AR requires activities to be held outside, which might not always be possible because of lack of Internet connection, adverse weather conditions, or finding a proper place to conduct activities. Furthermore, teachers might face challenges in monitoring learners, especially young learners. Considering that marker-based AR provides convenience for indoor activities with its less challenging design process, teachers and researchers tend to utilize it more often. Leaving classrooms for a change can motivate learners (even if they know the sites) as they can even design their own tours with compatible applications (Lakarnchua & Reinders, 2014). In addition, location-based AR applications were reported to foster creativity, facilitate collaboration, increase engagement along with opportunities for just-in-time learning and situational vocabulary learning (Wu, 2019), and foster active learning and improve environmental awareness (Mei & Yang, 2019). Thus, more teachers are encouraged to design lessons integrating location-based AR once their conditions are met. Finally, this systematic review reported that most articles conducted their studies utilizing a communicative type in terms of educational AR content. Communicative type content refers to the interaction between learners and augmented content, usually in marker-based AR activities. Moreover, several studies employed collaborative-type content where learners were put into pairs or groups to work together on a problem or mission, which contributed to learners’ interpersonal skills. However, there is a lack of studies on integrating experiential type of content considering that AR technology can offer more immersive experiences in museums or historical places to enhance learners’ cultural learning about the target language.

178 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

Notably, practical content was not observed in any of the studies, calling for researchers and teachers to design lessons where learners can experience things that they may not experience due to high risk or cost.

Conclusion

The current study is essential as it is the first review study regarding the practice of immersive learning technologies in ELT. The findings of this study are as follows: This study revealed an abrupt increase in the number of the studies starting from 2017. Taiwan revealed the highest number of the studies. The mostly employed research method was mixed methods research, and the most studied sample group was university students. The most focused language skill was vocabulary, speaking, and listening respectively. The most implemented technology was AR, and the most utilized tools to integrate these immersive technologies were smartphones. Most studies employed an existing program. The most mentioned advantage was learning motivation, improving learning achievement, learning enjoyment, learner engagement, interaction, drawing attention, reducing anxiety, and so forth. The review illustrated that the most reported challenge was technical/internet related problems. Interaction in VR environments occurred with real people in most of the studies, and audiovisual was the most preferred interaction method. The most implemented educational content through VR was training. In most of the AR articles, AR changed the learning environment towards learner-centered environment and promoted learning by doing. The most common senses that AR addressed were sight and hearing. Moreover, the most implemented educational content via AR was communication. Lastly, marker-based AR was the most utilized AR type. It is aimed to present following research implications for researchers who plan to perform studies on this matter. Finally, design principles are presented for

179 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE practitioners according to the results of this study.

Research implications

· Future research should focus on participants from other education levels. · There needs to be more studies on grammar knowledge, reading, and writing skills. · In future research, benefits such as promoting individualized learning, knowledge transfer into the real world, and social learning skills need to be investigated. · Future studies should offer ways to explore VR or AR for access limited resources. · More sensory AR that addresses senses (e.g. touching, smell) should be examined. · There is a need to conduct further studies through location-based AR. · More studies are required with practical and experiential type of educational content in AR implementation.

Design implications

· Instructors should actively implement immersive learning technologies with university students considering intervention duration, arranging programs meticulously, and offering sources of motivation for learning. · Instructors can employ AR mainly for vocabulary teaching and VR for speaking skills. · Instructors are advised to select adjustable programs that offer addition, removal, and change without difficulty based on their needs and objectives (Kerawalla et al., 2006).

180 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

· Learners who are to practice interpersonal skills should be allowed to interact with real people in VR environments, especially native speakers. Instructors may benefit avatars for younger or lower proficiency learners. · Instructors are suggested to design more dynamic AR contents that include videos and animations to increase immersion, thereby contributing to enhanced learning. · Regarding VR content, they are recommended to employ supplementary devices to computers such as HMD. Google cardboards might be considered in that they are economical, accessible, and provide high immersion.

181 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in systematic review.

Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. *Alexe, M. (2013). Developing professional English vocabulary through computer based simulted situations. In the 9th International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, April 25-26, 2013, pp. 249-254. *Arslantaş, T. K., & Tokel, S. T. (2018). Anxiety, motivation, and self-confidence in speaking English during task based activities in Second Life. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(2), 287-296. Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133-149. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Free Press. Blyth, C. (2018). Immersive technologies and language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 225-232. *Bonner, E., & Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practical ideas. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 33-53. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Oboken, NJ: Wiley. *Castañeda, M. A., Guerra, A. M., & Ferro, R. (2018). Analysis on the gamification and implementation of Leap Motion Controller in the IED Técnico industrial de Tocancipá. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 15(2), 155-164. *Chen, J. C. (2016a). EFL learners’ strategy use during task-based interaction in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3), 1-17. *Chen, J. C. (2016). The crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in Second Life. Computers &

182 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

Education, 102, 152-171. *Chen, J. C. (2018). The interplay of tasks, strategies and negotiations in Second Life. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 960-986. *Chen, R. W., & Chan, K. K. (2019). Using augmented reality flashcards to learn vocabulary in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(7), 1812-1831. *Chen, Y. L. (2016). The effects of virtual reality learning environment on student cognitive and linguistic development. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 637-646. Cho, B. (2018). Verification of the effect of flipped learning. (Doctoral dissertation). Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea. *Dash, A. K., Behera, S. K., Dogra, D. P., & Roy, P. P. (2018). Designing of marker-based augmented reality learning environment for kids using convolutional neural network architecture. Displays, 55(2018), 46-54. *Dolgunsöz, E., Yildirim, G., & Yildirim, S. (2018). The effect of virtual reality on EFL writing performance. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(1), 278-292. Fauth, B. (1988). Linking the Visual Arts with Drama; Movement, and Dance for the Young Child. SPONS AGENCY, 159-187. Ferry, T. (2016, August 15). Taiwan tech in education. Taiwan business topics. Retrieved from https://topics.amcham.com.tw/2016/08/taiwan-tech-education/ Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2014). Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge- building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Qualitative research, 14(3), 341-352. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/ Languages. Furió, D., GonzáLez-Gancedo, S., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I., & Costa, M. (2013). The effects of the size and weight of a mobile device on an educational game.

183 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE

Computers & Education, 64, 24-41. Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2019). A Meta-analysis of the impact of augmented reality on students’ learning effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 27, 244-260. *Gordon, C. L., Shea, T. M., Noelle, D. C., & Balasubramaniam, R. (2019). Affordance compatibility effect for word learning in virtual reality. Cognitive science, 43(6), 1-17. *Hao, K. C., & Lee, L. C. (2019). The development and evaluation of an educational game integrating augmented reality, ARCS model, and types of games for English experiment learning: An analysis of learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14. *Harvey, M., Deuel, A., & Marlatt, R. (2020). “To be, or not to be”: Modernizing Shakespeare with multimodal learning stations. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(5), 559-568. *Hassani, K., Nahvi, A., & Ahmadi, A. (2016). Design and implementation of an intelligent virtual environment for improving speaking and listening skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 252-271. *Hellermann, J., Thorne, S. L., & Fodor, P. (2017). Mobile reading as social and embodied practice. Classroom Discourse, 8(2), 99-121. *Hismanoglu, M. (2012). Integrating Second Life into an EFL classroom: A new dimension in foreign language learning and teaching. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 3(4), 100-111. *Ho, S. C., Hsieh, S. W., Sun, P. C., & Chen, C. M. (2017). To activate English learning: Listen and speak in real life context with an AR featured u-learning system. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 176-187. *Hoang, D. T. N., & Nguyen, N. T. B. (2019). Mobile augmented reality activities in EFL classrooms at a Vietnamese university from the students' perspective. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(1), 411-419. *Hockly, N. (2019). Augmented reality. ELT Journal, 73(3), 328-334. *Hong, Z. W., Chen, Y. L., & Lan, C. H. (2014). A courseware to script animated

184 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

pedagogical agents in instructional material for elementary students in English education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(5), 379-394. *Hsu, T. C. (2017). Learning English with augmented reality: Do learning styles matter?. Computers & Education, 106, 137-149. *Hsu, T. C. (2019). Effects of gender and different augmented reality learning systems on English vocabulary learning of elementary school students. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(2), 315-325. *Huang, C. (2010). A virtual world in which to learn to speak English: A case study using ESL students learning to speak English in an English school in Secondlife. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Games-Based Learning: ECGBL2010 (p. 141-150). Academic Conferences Limited. *Jee, M. J. (2014). From first life to second life: Evaluating task-based language learning in a new environment. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue Canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 40(1), 1-15. Johnson, L., Laurence, F., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 horizon report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., & Plimmer, B. (2017). A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 85-119. Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance education, 29(2), 175-185. Kerawalla, L., Luckin, R., Seljeflot, S., & Woolard, A. (2006). “Making it real”: exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual reality, 10(3-4), 163-174. *Kim, H. J., & Kim, B. H. (2018). Implementation of young children English education system by AR type based on P2P network service model. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, 11(6), 1252-1264. *Knutzen, B., & Kennedy, D. (2012). The global classroom project: Learning a second language in a virtual environment. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning,

185 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE

10(1), 90-106. *Kruk, M. (2014). The use of Internet resources and browser-based virtual worlds in teaching grammar. Teaching English with Technology, 14(2), 51-66. Kucuk, S., Aydemir, M., Yildirim, G., Arpacik, O., & Goktas, Y. (2013). Educational technology research trends in Turkey from 1990 to 2011. Computers & Education, 68, 42-50. *Kurtz, J. (2018). Adopting augmented reality for task-oriented EFL textbook development, instruction, and learning. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 47(2), 45-63. *Küçük, S., Yılmaz, R. M., & Göktaş, Y. (2014). Augmented reality for learning English: Achievement, attitude and cognitive load levels of students. Education & Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 39(176), 393-404. *Lakarnchua, O., & Reinders, H. (2014). Implementing mobile language learning with an augmented reality activity. Modern English Teacher, 23(2), 42-46. Lambert, J., & Cuper, P. (2008). Multimedia technologies and familiar spaces: 21st century teaching for 21st century learners. Contemporary Issues in technology and teacher education, 8(3), 264-276. *Lantavou, O., & Fesakis, G. (2018). The effect of an augmented reality board game on English vocabulary development. In ECGBL 2018 12th European Conference on Game-Based Learning (p. 316-324). Academic Conferences and publishing limited. *Lee, S. M., & Park, M. (2019). Reconceptualization of the context in language learning with a location-based AR app. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-24. *Li, K. C., Tsai, C. W., Chen, C. T., Cheng, S. Y., & Heh, J. S. (2016). The design of immersive English learning environment using augmented reality. In 2015 8th International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing (UMEDIA) 174-179. IEEE. *Liang, M. Y. (2012). Foreign ludicity in online role-playing games. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(5), 455-473. *Liaw, M. L. (2019). EFL learners’ intercultural communication in an open social

186 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

virtual environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(2), 38-55. *Liou, H. C. (2012). The roles of Second Life in a college computer-assisted language learning (CALL) course in Taiwan, ROC. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(4), 365-382. *Liu, P. H. E., & Tsai, M. K. (2013). Using augmented-reality-based mobile learning material in EFL English composition: An exploratory case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), E1-E4. *Lochmann, G., Reitz, L., Hunz, J., Sohny, A., & Schmidt, G. (2015). Haunted: intercultural communication training via information gaps in a cooperative virtual reality. University of Koblenz. Koblenz, Germany. Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1893-1906. *Mei, B., & Yang, S. (2019). Nurturing environmental education at the tertiary education level in China: Can mobile augmented reality and gamification help?. ustainability, 11(16), 4292. Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Systematic reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews. Bmj, 309(6954), 597-599. Ozdemir, M., Sahin, C., Arcagok, S., & Demir, M. K. (2018). The effect of augmented reality applications in the learning process: A meta-analysis study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 74, 165-186. *Park, M. (2018). Innovative assessment of aviation English in a virtual world: Windows into cognitive and metacognitive strategies. ReCALL, 30(2), 196-213. *Peterson, M. (2012). EFL learner collaborative interaction in Second Life. ReCALL, 24(1), 20-39. *Qu, C., Ling, Y., Heynderickx, I., & Brinkman, W. P. (2015). Virtual bystanders in a language lesson: examining the effect of social evaluation, vicarious experience, cognitive consistency and praising on students' beliefs, self-efficacy and anxiety in a virtual reality environment. PloS one, 10(4), 1-26.

187 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE

Quintero, J., Baldiris Navarro, S. M., Rubira, R., Cerón, J., & Velez, G. (2019). Augmented reality in educational inclusion: A systematic review on the last decade. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1835), 1-14. *Redondo, B., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., González-Calero, J. A., & Ruiz, R. S. (2019). Integration of augmented reality in the teaching of English as a foreign language in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(2), 147-155. *Richardson, D. (2016). Exploring the potential of a location based augmented reality game for language learning. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 6(3), 34-49. Rodrigues, J. M., Ramos, C. M., Pereira, J. A., Sardo, J. D., & Cardoso, P. J. (2019). Mobile five senses augmented reality system: Technology acceptance study. IEEE Access, 7, 163022-163033. *Safar, A. H., Al-Jafar, A. A., & Al-Yousefi, Z. H. (2017). The effectiveness of using augmented reality apps in teaching the English alphabet to kindergarten children: A case study in the State of Kuwait. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(2), 417-440. Shea, A. M. (2014). Student perceptions of a mobile augmented reality game and willingness to communicate in Japanese. (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University). *Shih, Y. C. (2015). A virtual walk through London: culture learning through a cultural immersion experience. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(5), 407-428. *Solak, E., & Cakir, R. (2015). Exploring the effect of materials designed with augmented reality on language learners' vocabulary learning. Journal of Educators Online, 12(2), 50-72. *Solak, E., & Cakir, R. (2016). Investigating the role of augmented reality technology in the language classroom. Online Submission, 18(4), 1067-1085. *Sorrentino, F., & Spano, L. D. (2019). Post-it notes: supporting teachers in authoring vocabulary game contents. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78(16), 23049-23074.

188 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

Statista. (2020). Forecast number of mobile devices worldwide from 2019 to 2023 (in billions). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/245501/ multiple-mobile-device-ownership-worldwide/ *Sydorenko, T., Hellermann, J., Thorne, S. L., & Howe, V. (2019). Mobile augmented reality and language-related episodes. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3), 712-740. *Taskiran, A. (2019). The effect of augmented reality games on English as foreign language motivation. E-Learning and Digital Media, 16(2), 122-135. Tekedere, H., & Göke, H. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in education: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(16), 9469-9481. *Tsai, C. C. A. (2018). Comparison of EFL elementary school learners’ vocabulary efficiency by using flashcards and augmented reality in Taiwan. Stanisław Juszczyk, 53-65. Turan, Z., & Akdag-Cimen, B. (2019). Flipped classroom in English language teaching: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-17. *Urun, M. F., Aksoy, H., & Comez, R. (2017). Supporting foreign language vocabulary learning through Kinect-based gaming. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 7(1), 20-35. Vazquez, C. D., Nyati, A. A., Luh, A., Fu, M., Aikawa, T., & Maes, P. (2017). Serendipitous language learning in mixed reality. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.2172-2179). Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Fam med, 37(5), 360-363. *Wang, Y. F., Petrina, S., & Feng, F. (2017). VILLAGE-virtual immersive language learning and gaming environment: Immersion and presence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 431-450. *Wang, Y. Y., Lai, A. F., Shen, R. K., Yang, C. Y., Shen, V. R., & Chu, Y. H. (2019).

189 Hamide Kubra ALTUN & Jeongmin LEE

Modeling and verification of an intelligent tutoring system based on Petri net theory. Mathematical biosciences and engineering: MBE, 16(5), 4947-4975. *Wu, M. H. (2019). The applications and effects of learning English through augmented reality: A case study of Pokémon Go. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-35. *Yang, J. C., Chen, C. H., & Jeng, M. C. (2010). Integrating video-capture virtual reality technology into a physically interactive learning environment for English learning. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1346-1356. *Yang, M. T., & Liao, W. C. (2014). Computer-assisted culture learning in an online augmented reality environment based on free-hand gesture interaction. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(2), 107-117. Yung, R., & Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2019). New realities: A systematic literature review on virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(17), 2056-2081.

Hamide Kubra ALTUN Master of Arts in Educational Technology, Ewha Womans University. Interests: Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Flipped Learning E-mail: [email protected]

Jeongmin LEE Associate Professor, Ewha Womans University. Interests: Technology-facilitated Learning Design E-mail: [email protected]

Received: September 05, 2020 / Peer review completed: September 21, 2020 / Accepted: September 28, 2020

190 Immersive Learning Technologies in English Language Teaching: A Systematic Review

Appendix No Author (year) Country Research method Education level 1 Alexe (2013) Romania Qualitative University 2 Arslantaş and Tokel (2018) Turkey Qualitative University 3 Bonner and Reinders (2018) - Literature review - 4 Castañeda et al. (2018) Colombia Quantitative Primary school 5 Chen J. C. (2016a) Australia Qualitative Other ESL learners 6 Chen J. C. (2016b) Australia Qualitative Other ESL learners 7 Chen (2018) Australia Qualitative Other ESL learners 8 Chen and Chan (2019) China Mixed methods Pre-school 9 Chen Y. L. (2016) Taiwan Quantitative University 10 Dash et al. (2018) India App development Pre-school 11 Dolgunsöz et al. (2018) Turkey Mixed methods University 12 Gordon et al. (2019) The U.S. Mixed methods University 13 Hao and Lee (2019) Taiwan Mixed methods Primary school 14 Harvey et al. (2019) The U.S. Qualitative High school 15 Hassani et al. (2016) Iran Quantitative University 16 Hellermann et al. (2017) The U.S. Qualitative University 17 Hismanoglu (2012) Turkey Literature review - 18 Ho et al. (2017) Taiwan Quantitative Other EFL learners 19 Hoang and Nguyen (2019) Vietnam Mixed methods University 20 Hockly (2019) - Literature review - 21 Hong et al. (2014) Taiwan Mixed methods Primary school 22 Hsu (2017) Taiwan Quantitative Primary school 23 Hsu (2019) Taiwan Quantitative Primary school 24 Huang (2010) The UK Qualitative Other 25 Jee (2014) The U.S. Qualitative Other ESL learners 26 Kim and Kim (2018) South Korea System design Pre-school 27 Knutzen and Kennedy (2012) Hong Kong Qualitative University 28 Kruk (2014) Poland Quantitative High school 29 Kurtz (2018) Germany Literature review - 30 Küçük et al. (2014) Turkey Quantitative Secondary school 31 Lakarnchua and Reinders (2014) Thailand Qualitative University 32 Lantavou and Fesakis (2018) Greece Quantitative Primary school 33 Lee and Park (2019) South Korea Mixed methods University 34 Li et al. (2016) Taiwan Qualitative - 35 Liang (2012) Taiwan Mixed Methods University 36 Liaw (2019) Taiwan Mixed methods University 37 Liou (2012) Taiwan Mixed methods University 38 Liu and Tsai (2013) Taiwan Mixed methods University 39 Lochmann et al. (2015) Germany Mixed methods Other EFL learners 40 Mei and Yang (2019) China Mixed methods University 41 Park (2018) China Mixed methods Other EFL learners 42 Peterson (2012) Japan Mixed Methods University 43 Qu et al. (2015) Netherland Mixed methods University 44 Redondo et al. (2019) Spain Quantitative Pre-school 45 Richardson (2016) Germany Qualitative University 46 Safar et al. (2017) Kuwait Mixed methods Pre-school 47 Shih (2015) Taiwan Mixed methods University 48 Solak and Cakir (2015) Turkey Quantitative University 49 Solak and Cakir (2016) Turkey Quantitative Primary school 50 Sorrentino and Spano (2019) Italy Qualitative Primary school 51 Sydorenko et al. (2019) The U.S. Qualitative University 52 Taskiran (2019) Turkey Quantitative University 53 Tsai (2018) Taiwan Quantitative Primary school 54 Urun et al. (2017) Turkey Mixed methods University 55 Wang et al. (2017) China Quantitative Other EFL learners 56 Wang et al. (2019) Taiwan Quantitative High school 57 Wu (2019) Taiwan Mixed methods University 58 Yang et al. (2010) Taiwan Mixed methods Primary school 59 Yang and Liao (2014) Taiwan Mixed methods University

191