Hello everyone, I am Tang Li, an M1 student.
I would like to introduce the paper for this week’s English seminar.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, my research explores the use of VR technology to support language learning. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to examine why VR technology is needed and what kind of impact it has on learners and learning outcomes. With that in mind, the paper I read this time concerns the impact of VR technology on improving oral proficiency in language learning.

Paper Title: Effects of using mobile-based virtual reality on Chinese L2 students’ oral proficiency.
Journal: Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(3): 225-245.
Authors: XIE, Ying; CHEN, Yan; RYDER, Lan Hui
Year: 2019

The following is a summary of this paper. If you are interested, please be sure to read the full paper.

—————-

The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach emphasizes that language learning occurs through thorough interaction and maximum use of the target language. On the other hand, for second language and foreign language learners to achieve improvements in oral proficiency, they need to receive necessary feedback in a timely manner and engage in sufficient practice. Therefore, it is considered effective to improve learners’ oral proficiency based on the CLT approach.

In this study, VR tools were used to support the improvement of learners’ oral proficiency. In foreign language learning contexts, providing authentic communication and content through VR is considered one of the greatest educational advantages. This is because objects in the space surrounding a person’s body are processed in a more thorough and complex manner; thus, the strong sense of presence provided by VR tools significantly reduces the distance to objects, allowing the brain to activate schemas through multi-sensory engagement and realize improved learning experiences. Therefore, it can be said that VR tools are excellent for supporting the application of the CLT approach, as they allow for immersion in scenes and ensure the target language is used to the maximum extent in authentic contexts.

In this study, the effect of VR tools on improving oral proficiency was verified over the course of a one-semester class. Participants were required to act as tour guides to introduce Chinese tourist destinations and present their content using either VR or PowerPoint. Regarding the data analysis method, a within-subjects experimental design and corresponding analysis were adopted, taking into account the mitigation of the effects of inter-subject variability. To effectively evaluate the participants’ oral proficiency, a sequential explanatory mixed-method design was adopted. A sequential explanatory mixed-method design consists of two stages: quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis. First, the participants’ oral presentations were analyzed quantitatively, and then qualitative data were analyzed to verify and explain the findings obtained. In other words, the qualitative analysis results regarding the participants’ perceptions of VR tools serve to explain and substantiate the interpretation of the quantitative data.

The quantitative analysis results regarding the participants’ oral proficiency were examined based on five dimensions—content, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar—as well as the total score of the oral presentation. On the other hand, for the qualitative analysis, reflection papers were used, individual interviews with participants were recorded, and an interpretive qualitative data analysis approach (a method appropriate when the focus of the research is to explain why a phenomenon might occur and how it develops over time) was used to supplement the results of the quantitative analysis. Furthermore, considering the impact of oral proficiency improvement over time, the data analysis examined the five effects of content, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar individually from the perspective of the passage of time.

As a result, participants’ scores for content, vocabulary, and total score when using VR tools were statistically significantly higher than when not using VR tools, while other dimensions such as fluency, pronunciation, and grammar showed similar scores regardless of the presence or absence of VR tools. Quantitative data indicated that the participants’ presentation content and vocabulary when using VR tools were statistically significantly better than when not using VR tools. Qualitative analysis revealed that this significant difference may have been brought about by three factors.

　　・VR tools facilitated preparation for the presentation.

　　・The novelty of the experience stimulated the participants’ interest.

　　・VR tools made real-world objects feel familiar and promoted active learning.

To summarize the results, VR tools increased the participants’ motivation to learn and encouraged them to learn autonomously, thereby promoting active learning.

In my opinion, this paper provides empirical evidence for the effect of VR tools in increasing learners’ interest and motivation, which in turn enables active learning by students, and clarifies that the sense of immersion from VR is important in increasing learners’ interest. In this regard, I think it will be useful for my own research, such as by demonstrating the advantages of VR tools for language learning. However, there are some points in this paper that are unclear to me.

First, the five dimensions for evaluating oral proficiency do not clearly indicate what is meant by “content.” Because the content aspect was not clearly explained, I do not know to what extent the participants’ expressions were evaluated or how they should be assessed.

Next, the point that it is not well understood how VR tools support the improvement of learners’ oral proficiency. The CLT approach involves practicing speaking through authentic interaction in authentic contexts. However, in this paper, there do not seem to be any specific functions for speaking practice or oral support using VR tools; thus, I think the VR tools are considered more as tools for providing reference materials and conducting presentations rather than as learning tools, and I do not think this can be called an application of the CLT approach. If we use VR as a learning tool to support learners’ oral proficiency based on the CLT approach, I believe it would be possible to improve oral proficiency by, for example, having learners experience scenes where they have the opportunity to communicate with tourists or staff at tourist destinations in the target language.

Finally, I question whether it is truly appropriate to evaluate learners’ oral proficiency by comparing presentations using PowerPoint with those using VR. When presenting using PowerPoint, there is no clear explanation of the learning materials used by the learners, and it is possible that they prepared for the presentation while researching information about the tourist destination. In contrast, with VR tools, a scene is displayed and explanations regarding that scene are provided, so the information provided is very rich and helpful for the learners’ preparation. I felt a bit skeptical about the validity of verifying the results as the benefits of VR tools for oral proficiency without excluding this part of the difference in information received by learners in the two cases of using VR versus PowerPoint.

Nevertheless, this paper was very educational for my research in terms of experimental design. While learning a lot about data analysis methods, I also realized the importance of confirming whether experimental results align with the research objectives. I feel that deeper consideration is needed on how to align experimental results with research objectives, and I would like to strive to advance my research even further.