Research & Learning Insights · Evidence Review

Virtual Reality for Second-Language Learning: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

What does immersive VR actually add to second-language learning—and when does the headset become little more than an expensive distraction? This review separates measurable language outcomes from presence, novelty and enjoyment.

62 scholarly sources synthesizedEvidence through August 2026Vocabulary · listening · speaking · writing · pragmatics · anxiety · retention

What does the evidence support?

Overall: Across meta-analyses, VR-assisted language learning shows a small-to-medium positive average effect compared with non-VR instruction, but effects vary substantially by task, comparison condition and implementation.1 2 4
Strongest case: Evidence is most coherent when VR supplies something conventional media cannot easily provide: situated vocabulary, interactive listening, scenario-based speaking, pragmatic rehearsal, spatial context and repeated low-stakes communicative practice.8 17 18 33
Not magic: Presence, immersion and enjoyment are not learning outcomes. VR can increase cognitive load, distract attention, create cybersickness or fail to outperform a well-designed non-VR alternative.53 58 59
Best role: The most defensible use of VR is as a practice environment inside a broader language curriculum—not as a replacement for systematic instruction, retrieval, feedback, reading, writing, listening and human interaction.

01 · Executive summary

VR helps most when it changes the language task—not merely the display

The central question is not whether virtual reality is “immersive.” It is whether immersion changes what the learner can perceive, decide, say, hear, remember or rehearse.

Three quantitative syntheses now provide a reasonably stable high-level picture. Qiu et al. pooled 23 controlled EFL studies and reported a small positive effect (g = .445). Chen, Wang and Wang synthesized 21 studies with 1,144 participants and reported medium effects for both linguistic outcomes (g = .662) and affective outcomes (g = .570). A 2026 meta-analysis focused specifically on productive skills synthesized 21 studies with 2,503 learners and found a moderate effect (g = .538), but heterogeneity was high (I² ≈ 79.5%).1 2 4

That heterogeneity is not statistical clutter; it is the main lesson. “VR” includes everything from desktop virtual worlds and 360° scenes to six-degree-of-freedom head-mounted environments with interactive objects, avatars and speech agents. The same hardware can support a demanding communicative task or a passive tour. The same virtual scene can create useful contextual cues or overwhelm working memory.

.445

Overall Hedges’ g in Qiu et al.’s meta-analysis of 23 controlled EFL studies.

.662

Linguistic-gain effect in Chen et al.’s 21-study meta-analysis; affective gains were g = .570.

K–12 immersive-VR RCTs survived the strictest 2026 review—and all carried at least some risk-of-bias concern.

Bottom line

VR is not a learning mechanism by itself. It is a delivery environment. Benefits arise when the environment creates useful contextual cues, requires language-relevant action, supports interaction, and connects those experiences to retrieval, feedback and later transfer.

02 · Definitions

“Virtual reality” is not one treatment

Language-learning papers frequently mix technologies that differ profoundly in sensory immersion and interactivity. That makes broad comparisons difficult. A head-mounted experience with tracked hands and spatial audio is not equivalent to a desktop 3D world, a 360° video, or a mobile panoramic scene. Recent reviews increasingly separate high-immersion HMD VR from lower-immersion virtual environments.8 15

Desktop / non-immersive virtual worlds

3D spaces viewed on a monitor, often with avatars and social interaction. These can still support situated tasks, collaboration and language exchange without strong bodily presence.

Spherical / 360° VR

Panoramic scenes viewed through a headset or mobile display. Useful for place-based context and perspective, but often less interactive than fully tracked VR.

High-immersion HMD VR

Head-tracked stereoscopic environments, often with controllers, hand tracking, spatial audio, avatars or AI agents. This is where claims about presence and embodiment are strongest—and where cognitive-load and cybersickness risks are greatest.

Social VR

Multi-user spaces in which language is used with other people or embodied avatars. The linguistic value comes primarily from interaction, turn-taking, pragmatics and social presence rather than visual fidelity alone.

03 · Review method

A structured evidence synthesis, with meta-analyses given the most weight

The review was designed to answer a decision question: what can a language educator reasonably expect from VR, and what still requires stronger evidence?

Searches targeted combinations of virtual reality, immersive VR, second language, foreign language, EFL, vocabulary, listening, speaking, writing, pragmatics, anxiety, retention, systematic review and meta-analysis. Priority was given to peer-reviewed meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized or controlled experiments and influential theory papers. The matrix below contains 62 works spanning reviews, experiments and mechanism studies.

This page is a structured research synthesis rather than a registered de novo PRISMA review. It does not claim exhaustive database coverage, duplicate screening or independent risk-of-bias adjudication. Instead, it triangulates the most relevant recent syntheses with representative primary studies and explicitly includes counterevidence.

Highest weightMeta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials.

Moderate weightControlled/quasi-experimental studies with objective language outcomes.

Contextual weightMixed-method, case, usability and classroom implementation studies.

Mechanism weightGeneral VR learning, memory, presence and cognitive-load studies used to explain—not prove—L2 effects.

04 · Overall effectiveness

The pooled effect is positive, but the field is too heterogeneous for “VR works” to be a sufficient conclusion

Qiu et al.’s EFL-specific meta-analysis reported g = .445, while Chen et al. reported g = .662 for linguistic outcomes and g = .570 for affective outcomes. Yu and Duan’s synthesis of 41 randomized controlled studies likewise found lower anxiety and higher motivation, performance, satisfaction and self-efficacy under VR-assisted conditions.1 2 3

More recent work narrows the claim. The 2026 productive-skills meta-analysis found g = .538, but effect sizes ranged from negative to very large and heterogeneity was substantial. Meanwhile, the most stringent K–12 review found only six eligible immersive-VR RCTs out of 1,054 initial records; vocabulary, listening and delayed retention looked promising, but all six trials had at least “some concerns” in risk-of-bias assessment.4 5

Forest plot of Hedges' g effect sizes from a 2026 meta-analysis of VR and productive language skills — Forest plot from Şimşek et al. (2026), showing the pooled productive-skills estimate of g = 0.538 alongside substantial between-study variation. Frontiers content is distributed under CC BY. Source: 4

Interpretation rule

If a study compares VR with a dull worksheet, it may measure novelty + interaction + multimedia + task design + immersion all at once. Stronger studies hold content constant and vary only the feature of interest.

05 · Vocabulary & retention

Contextual vocabulary is one of VR’s most credible strengths

Vocabulary benefits are most plausible when the environment binds a word to an object, action, place, goal or dialogue—and later requires the learner to retrieve it.

Alfadil’s VR vocabulary game, Tai et al.’s adolescent Mondly study, Lai and Chen’s VR-versus-PC visual novel, Luan et al.’s purpose-built environment and Xie et al.’s input-processing intervention all report positive vocabulary outcomes under at least some measures.16 18 19 21 22

The comparison with non-VR media matters. In Lai and Chen, both VR and PC groups learned vocabulary, while the VR advantage emerged on the delayed translation test. Tai et al. similarly found stronger learning and retention for interactive HMD VR than for watching a walkthrough video. These results support a narrower proposition: interactive spatial context may strengthen encoding and later retrieval, especially when it provides meaningful cues that a passive comparison lacks.18 19

Figure 2 · Author synthesis

Why a virtual room can become a vocabulary memory structure

Word appears in contextAudio/text/meaning tied to a visible object, location or social goal.

Learner actsPoints, chooses, moves, responds, speaks or manipulates rather than only watches.

Multiple retrieval cues formMeaning becomes associated with scene, action, sound and interaction.

Later retrievalRetention improves only if the learner can recover the word without depending on the original VR scene.

Synthesis informed by contextual vocabulary studies and general work on virtual-context memory.18 19 60 61

A key limitation is context dependence. Remembering a word inside the same virtual kitchen is not the same as producing it in a real kitchen, a conversation, a writing task or a test. Strong studies therefore need delayed tests and transfer tests outside VR.

06 · Listening & comprehension

VR can make listening consequential: learners hear language because they need it to act

Tai and Chen randomly assigned 72 seventh graders to an immersive Mondly condition or video-watching condition. The VR group showed stronger listening comprehension and retention. The authors linked the effect to authentic activity, prior-knowledge activation, inference, presence and reduced anxiety/cognitive overload.17

This is theoretically important because much classroom listening is detached from action. In real interaction, listeners use visual context, speaker cues, objects and goals to constrain interpretation. VR can recreate some of that multimodal ecology. But it can also add irrelevant visual information, locomotion demands and interface management that compete with speech processing.

Useful contextual constraint

Seeing a menu, map, person, room or object can narrow the set of plausible meanings and reduce ambiguity.

Attention to consequential input

If the learner must act on what was heard, listening becomes goal-directed rather than decorative.

Risk of split attention

Beautiful scenes, movement, menus and controls can compete with phonological decoding. A visually richer environment is not automatically a better listening environment.58 59

07 · Speaking, pragmatics & anxiety

VR’s distinctive contribution may be rehearsal of social language under controlled pressure

For speaking, the strongest argument for VR is access: it can simulate interlocutors, audiences and situations that are difficult to stage repeatedly in a classroom.

Studies of oral communication, tourism English, pragmatic competence and public speaking show how virtual environments can make learners respond to socially meaningful cues rather than recite isolated sentences.31 32 33 34

Anxiety evidence is encouraging but nuanced. Kaplan-Rakowski and Gruber, Ding, and Park et al. report reductions or useful shifts in aspects of foreign-language speaking anxiety under high-immersion or repeated-exposure conditions. However, VR does not automatically feel safe: social presence and embodied audiences can also reproduce real anxiety, and individual differences remain substantial.35 36 37

What VR can uniquely vary

Audience size, interlocutor behavior, background noise, social distance, time pressure, setting familiarity and task difficulty can be manipulated gradually. That creates a plausible graded rehearsal system for communicative confidence—provided learners receive language feedback, not merely exposure.

The 2026 productive-skills meta-analysis reports a moderate overall benefit for speaking/writing, but its heterogeneity means it would be an error to promise that a headset alone makes people fluent. Productive growth requires repeated output, feedback, lexical/grammatical support and opportunities to reuse improved forms.4

08 · Writing & collaboration

VR can supply experiences to write about—and shared problems to solve

Writing appears less intuitively “VR-native” than speaking, yet several studies show a coherent mechanism: immersive experiences generate content, perspective and situated knowledge that can later be organized into written language. Lan et al. used immersive Mandarin experiences to support writing; Khodabandeh found benefits for EFL paragraph writing; Guan et al. linked empathetic VR experience to writing performance; Mubarok et al. combined VR with collaborative argument mapping.30 39 40 41

This is a useful corrective to the idea that every learning action must occur inside the headset. The best VR lesson may end with the headset coming off. A learner can experience a scenario in VR, then complete retrieval, discussion, writing, reflection or assessment on a normal screen or on paper.

09 · Mechanisms

Presence is an affordance; learning still requires cognitive work

Makransky and Petersen’s Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL) is useful because it separates technological affordances from learning processes. Immersion can increase presence and agency, which can influence motivation, embodiment and attention. But those states help only when they result in relevant cognitive processing.57

Situated cognition

Language is tied to places, objects, intentions and social roles. VR can recreate those contexts and therefore supply richer retrieval cues.

Embodied action

Reaching, pointing, navigating and manipulating can connect lexical meaning to action, but physical activity must remain relevant to the target language.

Social presence

Avatars and virtual characters can create turn-taking pressure, pragmatic cues and willingness-to-communicate opportunities.

Affect and agency

Choice, novelty and perceived safety can increase motivation or reduce anxiety. These are mediators, not substitutes for learning.

Contextual memory

Distinct virtual environments can become memory cues. This may improve retention, but transfer should be tested outside the original scene.60 61

10 · Limits & counterevidence

More presence can also mean more distraction

General VR learning research gives a warning language educators should take seriously. Parong and Mayer found that immersive VR can produce strong presence and positive affect while also increasing extraneous cognitive load. Ahn et al. showed that spatial presence can have unintended consequences for learning when environmental immersion captures attention away from instructional content.58 59

Language-specific counterevidence exists as well. Hung, Chen and Chien explicitly report that VR is not always a cure-all in EFL business speaking. Cowie and Alizadeh similarly conclude that language-learning acquisition evidence remains less definitive than promotional enthusiasm suggests, especially after accounting for cost, teacher training and cybersickness.53 15

Risk of bias assessment of six K-12 immersive virtual reality language-learning randomized controlled trials — Risk-of-bias visualization from Sun & Song’s K–12 systematic review. Every included trial received an overall judgement of “some concerns,” a reminder that promising results are not the same as settled evidence. Frontiers content is distributed under CC BY. Source: 5

Recurring limitations across the evidence base

Small samples, short interventions and novelty effects.
Inconsistent definitions of VR and frequent mixing of desktop worlds, 360° video and HMD VR.
Weak active controls that do not match time-on-task, interactivity or multimedia exposure.
Heavy reliance on self-report motivation, presence and satisfaction.
Too few delayed retention and far-transfer measures.
Cybersickness, fatigue, headset fit, vision/comfort issues and classroom logistics.
Under-researched teacher role, facilitation burden and accessibility.
English-dominant evidence base with much less work in French and other target languages.7 47 55 56

11 · Design implications

A research-aligned VR language program should be built around tasks, not worlds

Eight defensible design rules

Give every scene a language job. The learner should need to identify, understand, choose, ask, explain, respond or produce.
Keep target language salient. Reduce decorative movement and irrelevant objects when they compete with listening, reading or lexical retrieval.
Prefer short, repeatable scenarios. Multiple exposures are more defensible than a single spectacular session.8
Connect VR to pre- and post-VR learning. Teach key language before immersion; retrieve, write, discuss and assess after it.
Use interactivity purposefully. Clicking everything is not learning. Actions should expose meaning, trigger dialogue or require a decision.
Build graded social pressure. For speaking, move from private rehearsal to virtual interlocutors, small audiences and more demanding scenarios.
Measure delayed retention and transfer. Test whether learners can use the language later, without the headset and in new situations.
Design for comfort and choice. Offer seated modes, short sessions, clear boundaries, hygiene procedures and alternatives for learners who cannot or do not wish to use HMDs.

Figure 4 · Author synthesis

The headset should sit inside the learning loop—not become the learning loop

PrepareTeach vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation and task goals before immersion.

ExperienceUse VR for contextual perception, action, listening, speaking and decision-making.

Retrieve & feedbackRequire recall, correction, explanation, rewriting and repeated output.

TransferUse new scenes, real conversation, writing or assessment to test portable language knowledge.

This architecture follows the strongest interpretation of the literature: VR supplies context and interaction, while durable learning depends on repeated processing, feedback and transfer beyond the original environment.

12 · Evidence matrix

All 62 sources, with the conclusion used in this review

The table makes the review auditable. Each “main conclusion” is a concise paraphrase of the finding or synthesis relevant to VR-assisted second-language learning; it is not a quotation from the paper.

Source-by-source evidence matrix
#	Study	Publication	Main conclusion used in this review
1	Qiu, Shan, Yao & Fu (2024)Meta-analysis	The effects of virtual reality on EFL learning: A meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 1379–1405. Source	Meta-analysis of 23 controlled studies found a small positive overall advantage for VR-based EFL learning (Hedges’ g = .445), with meaningful moderation by educational level, region and learning outcome.
2	Chen, Wang & Wang (2022)Meta-analysis	The Effects of Virtual Reality-Assisted Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability, 14(6), 3147. Source	Across 21 quantitative studies (N = 1,144), VR-assisted language learning showed medium positive effects for linguistic gains (g = .662) and affective gains (g = .570) relative to non-VR conditions.
3	Yu & Duan (2024)Meta-analysis	Meta-analyses of anxiety, motivation, performance, satisfaction, and self-efficacy in virtual reality-assisted language education. Foreign Language Annals, 57, 550–580. Source	Synthesis of 41 randomized controlled studies concluded that VR-assisted language education generally reduced anxiety while improving motivation, performance, satisfaction and self-efficacy; effects were not confined to one display type.
4	Şimşek et al. (2026)Meta-analysis	The effect of virtual reality applications on the development of productive language skills: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Education, 11. Source	Twenty-one studies involving 2,503 learners produced a moderate positive effect on speaking and writing (g = .538), but heterogeneity was substantial (I² ≈ 79.5%), so implementation details matter.
5	Sun & Song (2026)Systematic review	The effectiveness of virtual reality for K-12 foreign language learning: a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials. Frontiers in Psychology, 16:1714481. Source	Only six K–12 immersive-VR RCTs met strict criteria. Results were promising for vocabulary, listening and delayed retention, but every trial had at least some risk-of-bias concern and immediate-learning results were heterogeneous.
6	Wiboolyasarin, Jinowat & Wiboolyasarin (2026)Systematic review	Virtual Reality in Second Language Education: A Systematic Review of Pedagogical Affordances, Methodologies, and Technological Trends (2020–2024). Research Synthesis in Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 1–51. Source	Review of 55 empirical studies documented a shift toward immersive VR, emphasizing interactivity, contextualized language use and learner autonomy while identifying methodological and teacher-integration gaps.
7	Rahmanu & Molnár (2026)Systematic review	Virtual reality in English language education: A systematic review of opportunities and challenges in higher education. Acta Psychologica, 264, 106358. Source	Across 27 higher-education studies, VR was used for speaking, writing, vocabulary and other skills. Reported benefits coexist with dizziness, fatigue, motion sickness, neck discomfort, cognitive overload and under-researched teacher roles.
8	Dhimolea, Kaplan-Rakowski & Lin (2022)Systematic review	A systematic review of research on high-immersion virtual reality for language learning. TechTrends, 66, 810–824. Source	Review of 32 high-immersion studies concluded that repeated exposure is important, contextual vocabulary learning is a recurrent strength, learner perceptions are positive, but evidence for overall language-learning superiority remained inconclusive.
9	Peixoto et al. (2021)Systematic review	Immersive Virtual Reality for Foreign Language Education: A PRISMA Systematic Review. IEEE Access, 9, 48952–48962. Source	Early PRISMA review found generally positive relationships between immersive VR, language learning, motivation and satisfaction, but emphasized a small evidence base and major research gaps.
10	Pataquiva & Klimova (2022)Systematic review	A systematic review of virtual reality in the acquisition of second language. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(15), 43–53. Source	A narrowly focused review of immersive-reality L2 studies found encouraging results across language skills but too few heterogeneous studies to justify broad causal claims.
11	Weng et al. (2024)Systematic review	The effectiveness of immersive learning technologies in K–12 English as second language learning: A systematic review. ReCALL, 36, 210–229. Source	K–12 evidence suggests immersive technologies can support ESL learning and engagement, while outcomes depend on pedagogy, age, task structure and technical implementation.
12	Ozgun & Sadık (2023)Systematic review	Implementation of VR technologies in language learning settings: a systematic literature review. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18, 32–61. Source	The review highlights contextualization, interaction and motivation as recurrent affordances, alongside access, equipment, training and design constraints.
13	Li, Pan, Sun & Yao (2021)Review	Virtual reality in foreign language learning: a review of the literature. 2021 IEEE 7th International Conference on Virtual Reality, 302–307. Source	Literature review describes growing use of VR across foreign-language skills while noting uneven research designs and the need to connect technological affordances to language pedagogy.
14	Lin & Lan (2015)Review	Language learning in virtual reality environments: past, present, and future. Educational Technology & Society, 18, 486–497. Source	Foundational review argues that virtual environments are most educationally meaningful when they support authentic interaction, situated tasks and social learning rather than novelty alone.
15	Cowie & Alizadeh (2026)Review	Virtual reality for language learning. ELT Journal, 80(3), 388–396. Source	Practice-focused review concludes that VR has motivational and contextual potential, but cost, teacher training, cybersickness and still-limited acquisition evidence prevent treating it as a universal replacement for established instruction.
16	Alfadil (2020)Vocabulary	Effectiveness of virtual reality game in foreign language vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education, 153, 103893. Source	A VR vocabulary game produced higher vocabulary achievement than a traditional comparison in intermediate-school EFL learners, supporting contextualized game-based vocabulary practice.
17	Tai & Chen (2021)Listening	The Impact of Immersive Virtual Reality on EFL Learners’ Listening Comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(7), 1272–1293. Source	Seventh graders using mobile-rendered HMD VR outperformed video watchers on listening comprehension and retention; interviews linked benefits to engagement, presence, prior-knowledge activation and inference.
18	Tai, Chen & Todd (2022)Vocabulary	The impact of a virtual reality app on adolescent EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 892–917. Source	VR users showed significantly stronger vocabulary learning and retention than video watchers; multimodal context, interactivity and feedback were proposed as key mechanisms.
19	Lai & Chen (2023)Vocabulary	A comparative study on the effects of a VR and PC visual novel game on vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36, 312–345. Source	Both VR and PC versions improved vocabulary, but VR showed an advantage on a delayed vocabulary-translation test—evidence that immersion may particularly aid retention rather than every immediate outcome.
20	Kaplan-Rakowski & Thrasher (2025)Vocabulary	The impact of high-immersion virtual reality and interactivity on vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. Source	The study isolates high immersion and interactivity as design variables in vocabulary learning, reinforcing that VR effectiveness depends on what learners actually do in the environment, not headset use alone.
21	Xie, Zhang & Yang (2025)Vocabulary	Effect of immersive virtual reality based upon input processing model for second language vocabulary retention. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 12365–12385. Source	Input-processing-informed immersive VR improved second-language vocabulary retention, indicating that theoretically structured attention to form and meaning can strengthen VR learning.
22	Luan et al. (2024)Vocabulary	The effects of a self-developed virtual reality environment on college EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Interactive Learning Environments. Source	A purpose-built VR environment improved college EFL vocabulary outcomes, supporting scene-based contextual learning when vocabulary is embedded in meaningful interaction.
23	Jwai’ed et al. (2024)Vocabulary	Utilizing virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies in EFL classrooms: A novel approach to improve vocabulary learning and retention. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(7), 22–33. Source	Immersive and augmented environments were associated with better EFL vocabulary learning and retention, though the mixed-technology design limits claims about VR-specific mechanisms.
24	Akyıldız (2025)Vocabulary	The impact of virtual reality on vocabulary learning and cognitive efficiency. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 8, 152–163. Source	VR can support vocabulary learning efficiently when task demands are controlled; the study foregrounds cognitive efficiency rather than engagement alone.
25	Monteiro & Ribeiro (2020)Vocabulary / affect	Virtual reality in English vocabulary teaching: an exploratory study on affect in the use of technology. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada, 59, 1310–1338. Source	Exploratory work shows positive affect and engagement around VR vocabulary learning, while its design does not by itself prove durable vocabulary superiority.
26	Kaplan-Rakowski (2019)Vocabulary / media	The effect of stereoscopic three-dimensional images on vocabulary learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10, 324–337. Source	Stereoscopic 3D presentation can influence vocabulary learning, but 3D imagery alone is a weaker claim than fully interactive VR and should not be conflated with it.
27	Lan (2015)Situated learning	Contextual EFL learning in a 3D virtual environment. Language Learning & Technology, 19, 16–31. Source	Contextualized 3D learning supported EFL practice by tying language to meaningful places and actions, an early demonstration of situated-language affordances.
28	Lan (2014)Social virtual world	Does Second Life improve Mandarin learning by overseas Chinese students? Language Learning & Technology, 18, 36–56. Source	A social virtual world supported Mandarin learning and participation, illustrating the importance of interaction and task design in virtual environments.
29	Lan, Kan, Sung & Chang (2016)Speaking	Oral-performance language tasks for CSL beginners in Second Life. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 60–79. Source	Virtual-world oral tasks gave beginning Chinese learners opportunities to rehearse and perform communicative language in contextualized settings.
30	Lan, Lyu & Chin (2019)Writing	Does a 3D immersive experience enhance Mandarin writing by CSL students? Language Learning & Technology, 23, 125–144. Source	Immersive contextual experience was used to seed richer Mandarin writing, suggesting VR can function as a pre-writing experience rather than only as a speaking tool.
31	Ou Yang et al. (2020)Speaking / communication	Facilitating communicative ability of EFL learners via high-immersion virtual reality. Educational Technology & Society, 23, 30–49. Source	High-immersion VR supported communicative ability by placing EFL learners inside interactional situations; communicative task quality remains central to the effect.
32	Lin et al. (2023)Speaking / collaboration	Supporting dyadic learning of English for tourism purposes with scenery-based virtual reality. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36, 906–942. Source	Scenery-based VR supported paired English-for-tourism learning, showing that VR can combine spatial context with dyadic collaboration rather than isolating learners.
33	Akay & Kessler (2024)Pragmatics / speaking	The impact of virtual reality (VR) pedagogy on L2 English learners’ oral communication and pragmatic competence. Language Learning & Technology, 28, 1–11. Source	VR pedagogy supported oral communication and pragmatic competence, highlighting value for socially situated language functions—not just word recall.
34	Taguchi (2022)Pragmatics	Immersive Virtual Reality for pragmatics task development. TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 308–335. Source	Immersive VR can support pragmatics tasks by making social setting, interlocutor and contextual cues part of the task; instructional design must still make pragmatic targets explicit.
35	Kaplan-Rakowski & Gruber (2023)Anxiety	The impact of high-immersion virtual reality on foreign language anxiety. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 46. Source	High-immersion VR can create a lower-stakes environment for some learners and reduce aspects of foreign-language anxiety, but anxiety responses vary across individuals and tasks.
36	Ding (2024)Speaking anxiety	The impact of high-immersion virtual reality on EFL learners’ foreign language speaking anxiety: A mixed-method approach. ReCALL. Source	Mixed-method evidence indicates that high-immersion VR can reduce speaking anxiety for some EFL learners while showing that emotional responses are not uniformly positive or automatic.
37	Park et al. (2025)Speaking anxiety	Reducing foreign language anxiety through repeated exposure to a customizable VR public speaking application. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 6:1519409. Source	Repeated, customizable VR public-speaking exposure showed promise for reducing foreign-language anxiety and improving perceived speaking readiness; learner differences remained important.
38	Ye et al. (2026)Speaking / anxiety	Beyond immersion: Investigating the impact of SVVR on FLCA in a Chinese EFL speaking class. Acta Psychologica, 264, 106504. Source	A 16-week spherical-video VR intervention examined speaking performance and multiple dimensions of classroom anxiety, underscoring that anxiety effects should be measured separately rather than treated as one construct.
39	Khodabandeh (2022)Writing	Exploring the applicability of virtual reality-enhanced education on extrovert and introvert EFL learners’ paragraph writing. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19, 27. Source	VR-enhanced instruction supported paragraph writing across personality groups, suggesting that immersive contextual input can feed productive writing tasks.
40	Guan et al. (2024)Writing / empathy	From experience to empathy: An empathetic VR-based learning approach to improving EFL learners' empathy and writing performance. Computers & Education, 220, 105120. Source	Empathy-oriented VR improved EFL writing performance while targeting perspective-taking, showing a route from embodied experience to richer written production.
41	Mubarok, Lin & Hwang (2024)Writing / collaboration	A virtual reality-based collaborative argument mapping approach in the EFL classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 32, 4978–4996. Source	Collaborative argument mapping in VR links immersion to structured reasoning and language production, illustrating that pedagogical scaffolds can matter more than visual fidelity.
42	Acar & Cavas (2020)Reading / writing	The effect of virtual reality enhanced learning environment on the 7th-grade students’ reading and writing skills in English. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(4), 22–33. Source	A VR-enhanced environment supported English reading and writing among seventh graders, though the study design should be interpreted alongside broader evidence rather than alone.
43	Mohamed et al. (2022)Writing	The effect of virtual reality in developing Al-Azhar secondary stage students’ EFL writing skills. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6, 4349–4365.	VR-based instruction was associated with improved secondary-school EFL writing, adding to evidence that immersive experiences can provide content and context for writing tasks.
44	Liu (2023)Writing	An empirical study of the effect of non-immersive virtual reality on college students’ English writing. Open Access Library Journal, 10, e10913. Source	Non-immersive VR also supported English writing, reminding us that benefits may come from contextualization and task design rather than maximum immersion alone.
45	Chang, Park & Suh (2024)K–12	Virtual reality as a pedagogical tool: An experimental study of English learner in lower elementary grades. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 4809–4842. Source	Large lower-elementary study found VR useful for English learning tasks; school implementation requires attention to age, session design and classroom management.
46	Frolli et al. (2024)K–12	English language learning in primary school children using immersive virtual reality. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies, 78–88. Source	Primary-school work indicates feasibility and learning potential of immersive VR, but short interventions and small samples limit generalization.
47	Nóbrega & Rozenfeld (2019)French / K–12	Virtual reality in the teaching of FLE in a Brazilian public school. Languages, 4(2), 36. Source	French-as-a-foreign-language classroom work shows VR can support contextual and cultural experiences in public-school settings, providing rare evidence beyond English-dominant VR research.
48	Alemi & Khatoony (2020)Pronunciation	Virtual reality assisted pronunciation training (VRAPT) for young EFL learners. Teaching English with Technology, 20, 59–81.	VR-assisted pronunciation practice was feasible and beneficial for young EFL learners, suggesting immersive environments can support perception-production practice when feedback is included.
49	Dooly, Thrasher & Sadler (2023)Learner experience	‘Whoa! Incredible!’: language learning experiences in virtual reality. RELC Journal, 54, 321–339. Source	Learners reported strong engagement and memorable language-learning experiences in VR, but experiential enthusiasm should be separated from measured acquisition.
50	Jauregi-Ondarra, Gruber & Canto (2021)Intercultural / exchange	Pedagogical experiences in a virtual exchange project using high-immersion virtual reality for intercultural language learning. EUROCALL 2021, 155–160. Source	High-immersion virtual exchange can combine language practice with intercultural interaction, especially when structured around purposeful peer communication.
51	Figueroa et al. (2024)Virtual tours	Utilizing virtual reality tours in language learning. ASCILITE Publications, 24–25. Source	VR tours can motivate adult language learners and provide spatial-cultural context; perceived learning depends on lesson design, novelty and individual learner characteristics.
52	Ng, Ng & Chu (2023)Virtual tours	Engaging students in virtual tours to learn language and digital literacy. Journal of Computers in Education, 10, 575–602. Source	Virtual tours can support language and digital-literacy outcomes when learners actively explore, discuss and produce rather than passively view scenes.
53	Hung, Chen & Chien (2024)Counterevidence	Virtual reality is not always a cure-all: evidences from a quasi-experiment of EFL business speaking courses. Interactive Learning Environments, 32, 4426–4442. Source	A crucial counterexample: VR did not automatically outperform alternatives in business-speaking instruction. Pedagogical fit, workload and implementation can erase or reverse expected benefits.
54	Derakhshan, Teo & Khazaie (2024)ESP / game-based	Is game-based language learning general or specific-oriented? Exploring the applicability of mobile virtual realities to medical English education in the Middle East. Computers & Education, 213, 105013. Source	Mobile VR/game-based methods can support domain-specific medical English, suggesting strongest value when virtual scenarios mirror authentic professional communicative situations.
55	Humayrah, Ismail & Thalia (2025)Arabic / speaking	Application of virtual reality via the Delightex platform for enhancing proficiency in Arabic speaking skills. Al-Ta'rib, 13, 443–460. Source	VR-supported Arabic speaking practice broadens the evidence beyond English and indicates potential for contextualized oral rehearsal in other target languages.
56	Keller, Brucker-Kley & Schwammel (2024)German / case study	A case study of an immersive learning unit for German as a second language. Discover Education, 3, 28. Source	German L2 case evidence shows how immersive units can be integrated into instruction, while also illustrating the field’s continuing reliance on small-context studies.
57	Makransky & Petersen (2021)Theory	The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): a theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 937–958. Source	CAMIL explains why immersion can help through presence, agency, motivation and embodiment—but also why these affective affordances do not guarantee learning without generative cognitive processing.
58	Parong & Mayer (2018)Cognitive load	Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 785–797. Source	Immersive VR can raise presence and positive affect while also imposing extraneous cognitive load; learning may be weaker than less immersive media unless instructional supports are added.
59	Ahn, Nowak & Bailenson (2022)Presence / counterevidence	Unintended consequences of spatial presence on learning in virtual reality. Computers & Education, 186, 104532. Source	Greater spatial presence can have unintended learning costs when attention is captured by the environment rather than the instructional target—presence is not synonymous with learning.
60	Cadet & Chainay (2020)Memory mechanism	Memory of virtual experiences: role of immersion, emotion and sense of presence. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 144, 102506. Source	Immersion, emotion and presence can shape memory for virtual experiences, providing a mechanism for durable contextual memories but not proof of language transfer.
61	Essoe et al. (2022)Memory mechanism	Enhancing learning and retention with distinctive virtual reality environments and mental context reinstatement. npj Science of Learning, 7, 31. Source	Distinctive VR contexts can support learning and later retention through contextual reinstatement, suggesting a plausible mechanism for scenario-specific language memory.
62	Wu, Yu & Gu (2020)General VR meta-analysis	Effectiveness of immersive virtual reality using head-mounted displays on learning performance: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51, 1991–2005. Source	Across educational domains, HMD-based immersive VR shows a positive average learning effect but substantial variation; language-learning claims should therefore be tied to task and comparison conditions.

13 · Conclusion

VR is most defensible as a simulator for language use

The evidence does not justify “VR makes language learning better” as a universal claim. It does justify a narrower and more useful one: well-designed virtual environments can improve some language outcomes by making vocabulary spatial and actionable, listening consequential, speaking repeatable, pragmatics contextual, and anxiety manageable. Average effects are positive, but highly variable. The educational value comes from what the learner must do with language inside the environment—and what they can still do after the headset comes off.

14 · References

References

Links point to DOI or publisher/repository records where available. Published-figure reuse on this page is limited to openly licensed sources.

Qiu, Shan, Yao & Fu (2024). The effects of virtual reality on EFL learning: A meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 1379–1405. Open source
Chen, Wang & Wang (2022). The Effects of Virtual Reality-Assisted Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability, 14(6), 3147. Open source
Yu & Duan (2024). Meta-analyses of anxiety, motivation, performance, satisfaction, and self-efficacy in virtual reality-assisted language education. Foreign Language Annals, 57, 550–580. Open source
Şimşek et al. (2026). The effect of virtual reality applications on the development of productive language skills: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Education, 11. Open source
Sun & Song (2026). The effectiveness of virtual reality for K-12 foreign language learning: a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials. Frontiers in Psychology, 16:1714481. Open source
Wiboolyasarin, Jinowat & Wiboolyasarin (2026). Virtual Reality in Second Language Education: A Systematic Review of Pedagogical Affordances, Methodologies, and Technological Trends (2020–2024). Research Synthesis in Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 1–51. Open source
Rahmanu & Molnár (2026). Virtual reality in English language education: A systematic review of opportunities and challenges in higher education. Acta Psychologica, 264, 106358. Open source
Dhimolea, Kaplan-Rakowski & Lin (2022). A systematic review of research on high-immersion virtual reality for language learning. TechTrends, 66, 810–824. Open source
Peixoto et al. (2021). Immersive Virtual Reality for Foreign Language Education: A PRISMA Systematic Review. IEEE Access, 9, 48952–48962. Open source
Pataquiva & Klimova (2022). A systematic review of virtual reality in the acquisition of second language. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(15), 43–53. Open source
Weng et al. (2024). The effectiveness of immersive learning technologies in K–12 English as second language learning: A systematic review. ReCALL, 36, 210–229. Open source
Ozgun & Sadık (2023). Implementation of VR technologies in language learning settings: a systematic literature review. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18, 32–61. Open source
Li, Pan, Sun & Yao (2021). Virtual reality in foreign language learning: a review of the literature. 2021 IEEE 7th International Conference on Virtual Reality, 302–307. Open source
Lin & Lan (2015). Language learning in virtual reality environments: past, present, and future. Educational Technology & Society, 18, 486–497. Open source
Cowie & Alizadeh (2026). Virtual reality for language learning. ELT Journal, 80(3), 388–396. Open source
Alfadil (2020). Effectiveness of virtual reality game in foreign language vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education, 153, 103893. Open source
Tai & Chen (2021). The Impact of Immersive Virtual Reality on EFL Learners’ Listening Comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(7), 1272–1293. Open source
Tai, Chen & Todd (2022). The impact of a virtual reality app on adolescent EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 892–917. Open source
Lai & Chen (2023). A comparative study on the effects of a VR and PC visual novel game on vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36, 312–345. Open source
Kaplan-Rakowski & Thrasher (2025). The impact of high-immersion virtual reality and interactivity on vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. Open source
Xie, Zhang & Yang (2025). Effect of immersive virtual reality based upon input processing model for second language vocabulary retention. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 12365–12385. Open source
Luan et al. (2024). The effects of a self-developed virtual reality environment on college EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Interactive Learning Environments. Open source
Jwai’ed et al. (2024). Utilizing virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies in EFL classrooms: A novel approach to improve vocabulary learning and retention. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(7), 22–33. Open source
Akyıldız (2025). The impact of virtual reality on vocabulary learning and cognitive efficiency. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 8, 152–163. Open source
Monteiro & Ribeiro (2020). Virtual reality in English vocabulary teaching: an exploratory study on affect in the use of technology. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada, 59, 1310–1338. Open source
Kaplan-Rakowski (2019). The effect of stereoscopic three-dimensional images on vocabulary learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10, 324–337. Open source
Lan (2015). Contextual EFL learning in a 3D virtual environment. Language Learning & Technology, 19, 16–31. Open source
Lan (2014). Does Second Life improve Mandarin learning by overseas Chinese students? Language Learning & Technology, 18, 36–56. Open source
Lan, Kan, Sung & Chang (2016). Oral-performance language tasks for CSL beginners in Second Life. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 60–79. Open source
Lan, Lyu & Chin (2019). Does a 3D immersive experience enhance Mandarin writing by CSL students? Language Learning & Technology, 23, 125–144. Open source
Ou Yang et al. (2020). Facilitating communicative ability of EFL learners via high-immersion virtual reality. Educational Technology & Society, 23, 30–49. Open source
Lin et al. (2023). Supporting dyadic learning of English for tourism purposes with scenery-based virtual reality. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36, 906–942. Open source
Akay & Kessler (2024). The impact of virtual reality (VR) pedagogy on L2 English learners’ oral communication and pragmatic competence. Language Learning & Technology, 28, 1–11. Open source
Taguchi (2022). Immersive Virtual Reality for pragmatics task development. TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 308–335. Open source
Kaplan-Rakowski & Gruber (2023). The impact of high-immersion virtual reality on foreign language anxiety. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 46. Open source
Ding (2024). The impact of high-immersion virtual reality on EFL learners’ foreign language speaking anxiety: A mixed-method approach. ReCALL. Open source
Park et al. (2025). Reducing foreign language anxiety through repeated exposure to a customizable VR public speaking application. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 6:1519409. Open source
Ye et al. (2026). Beyond immersion: Investigating the impact of SVVR on FLCA in a Chinese EFL speaking class. Acta Psychologica, 264, 106504. Open source
Khodabandeh (2022). Exploring the applicability of virtual reality-enhanced education on extrovert and introvert EFL learners’ paragraph writing. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19, 27. Open source
Guan et al. (2024). From experience to empathy: An empathetic VR-based learning approach to improving EFL learners' empathy and writing performance. Computers & Education, 220, 105120. Open source
Mubarok, Lin & Hwang (2024). A virtual reality-based collaborative argument mapping approach in the EFL classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 32, 4978–4996. Open source
Acar & Cavas (2020). The effect of virtual reality enhanced learning environment on the 7th-grade students’ reading and writing skills in English. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(4), 22–33. Open source
Mohamed et al. (2022). The effect of virtual reality in developing Al-Azhar secondary stage students’ EFL writing skills. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6, 4349–4365.
Liu (2023). An empirical study of the effect of non-immersive virtual reality on college students’ English writing. Open Access Library Journal, 10, e10913. Open source
Chang, Park & Suh (2024). Virtual reality as a pedagogical tool: An experimental study of English learner in lower elementary grades. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 4809–4842. Open source
Frolli et al. (2024). English language learning in primary school children using immersive virtual reality. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies, 78–88. Open source
Nóbrega & Rozenfeld (2019). Virtual reality in the teaching of FLE in a Brazilian public school. Languages, 4(2), 36. Open source
Alemi & Khatoony (2020). Virtual reality assisted pronunciation training (VRAPT) for young EFL learners. Teaching English with Technology, 20, 59–81.
Dooly, Thrasher & Sadler (2023). ‘Whoa! Incredible!’: language learning experiences in virtual reality. RELC Journal, 54, 321–339. Open source
Jauregi-Ondarra, Gruber & Canto (2021). Pedagogical experiences in a virtual exchange project using high-immersion virtual reality for intercultural language learning. EUROCALL 2021, 155–160. Open source
Figueroa et al. (2024). Utilizing virtual reality tours in language learning. ASCILITE Publications, 24–25. Open source
Ng, Ng & Chu (2023). Engaging students in virtual tours to learn language and digital literacy. Journal of Computers in Education, 10, 575–602. Open source
Hung, Chen & Chien (2024). Virtual reality is not always a cure-all: evidences from a quasi-experiment of EFL business speaking courses. Interactive Learning Environments, 32, 4426–4442. Open source
Derakhshan, Teo & Khazaie (2024). Is game-based language learning general or specific-oriented? Exploring the applicability of mobile virtual realities to medical English education in the Middle East. Computers & Education, 213, 105013. Open source
Humayrah, Ismail & Thalia (2025). Application of virtual reality via the Delightex platform for enhancing proficiency in Arabic speaking skills. Al-Ta'rib, 13, 443–460. Open source
Keller, Brucker-Kley & Schwammel (2024). A case study of an immersive learning unit for German as a second language. Discover Education, 3, 28. Open source
Makransky & Petersen (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): a theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 937–958. Open source
Parong & Mayer (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 785–797. Open source
Ahn, Nowak & Bailenson (2022). Unintended consequences of spatial presence on learning in virtual reality. Computers & Education, 186, 104532. Open source
Cadet & Chainay (2020). Memory of virtual experiences: role of immersion, emotion and sense of presence. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 144, 102506. Open source
Essoe et al. (2022). Enhancing learning and retention with distinctive virtual reality environments and mental context reinstatement. npj Science of Learning, 7, 31. Open source
Wu, Yu & Gu (2020). Effectiveness of immersive virtual reality using head-mounted displays on learning performance: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51, 1991–2005. Open source