UPENN EDUC 545
Yeonhee Cho & Qi kuang
VR Travel Language
Organization of the Report
This report is broken down into two parts. In the first part, needs assessment, we begin by briefly describe the learning context of our product. Immediately after that, we will explain our choice of target users building on our theoretical research before we clarify the exact problem our product help users address. Later, we will reach to the core of our product’s educational affordance which are the knowledge set it could teach the users and the theory of change which explains the underlying mechanisms responsible for promoting learning. Last but not least, we will compare our product to two top performers on the market and analyze how our product could address the issues we found in them. However, we are also thankful that these two top performers provided inspiration for the genesis of our product design. In the second part of our report, we will describe the core functions of our product and how learning could actually occur in one of the learning scenes.
VR Travel Language Demo Video
1. Needs Assessment
1.1 Context:
Our product is based on VR technology which requires the usage of VR headset to access the learning experience. So learning experience will happen on the VR screen inside the VR headset. Besides the VR set, a computer with HD graphic card is also required to operate our product.
1.2. Target Users
1.2.1 Reasons for choosing college students over younger users
We target our product towards adults in the US who, as a beginner, intends to improve their ability to engage in simple everyday dialogue in the L2 of the country where they are going to travel, especially when they planning on independent tour.
Next, we will briefly discuss why we specifically target adult learners. In the work by Lowenthal and Bull (1984) and Olson and Samuels (1973), Butler (2013) found evidence that adult learners’ L2 learning performances tend to be better than those of younger learners provided that the target language was presented in a regulated manner. However, study by Snow and Hoefnagle-Höhle (1978) showed that the advantage of adult learners was only maintained in the short term with younger learners gradually overtaking them over the long term. Although the argument by Snow and Hoefnagle-Höhle (1978) the longterm advantage of young learners over adult learners in terms of L2 learning outcome, it actually supports our choice of adult learners as target audience because our product actually is designed to short term L2 training to users who want to pick up some practical L2 communicative skills before they travel to the target countries. Similarly, our choice of target audience could also be support by Long (2005) who, building on the work by Long (1990) and Krashen, Long, and Scarcella (1979), noted that adults demonstrated higher rate of learning than young learners in the short term.
As will be discussed later in theory of change, users’a ability to inhabit their new roles in VR environment will affect their degree of engagement (see 2.5.4) and thus affect the learning outcomes. However, building on the work by Klein (1986), Wehner, Gump, & Downey (2011) noted that younger users are more likely than adults to retreat to their original identity rather than adapt to the new identity in VR environments. This inclination will potentially reduce the efficacy of our product. Therefore, considering the short term advantage of adults learners over younger learners in terms of L2 learning outcome and their stronger ability to inhabit roles in the VR learning environments, we find it more sensible to target adult learners.
1.2.2 Additional Reasons for Not Choosing Younger Users
It is also worth mentioning we did not target our product toward younger users for the potential threat to their health conditions. Some VR headset manufactures have set recommended set age limit to using the equipment at a younger age. Sony sets it at 12 years old; for Samsung, it is 13 (Gent, 2016; Hill, 2016). Although these companies did not offer any reason for setting such limits, it is sensible to that it has to do with possible threats to children’s health. More importantly, studies by research scientists suggests that using VR headsets could negatively affect children’s brain development (Gent, 2016) and eye sight (Gent, 2016; Hill, 2016) although some pointed out that VR technology detect eye problems early (Hill, 2016). Other scientists have found that some children, after using VR headsets for some time, suffer from the loss of balance which could have serious physiological issues McKie (2017). Nausea and risk of collision can also be attributed to the use of VR headsets (Gent, 2016). Although the lack of research studies made scientists unable to establish a determinate causal relationship between the use of VR headsets and damage to Children’s health (Gent, 2016; Hill, 2016), we still consider it best to first promote product to older users.
1.3 Problem Statement
Need reference（just explain that they could benefit from some lessons or practice before they travel）
The kind of psychological distress, like anxiety and embarrassment could befall upon L2 learners who are exposed to an entirely culturally and linguistically different environment. We consider our product as a useful tool help L2 learners to acquire simple but practical communicative skill before they travel to another country so that they are able to independently engage in basic daily conversations in foreign countries without a translator. However, only linguistic practice alone might not solve this issue. The efficacy of the learning process could be optimized if it is embedded in VR environment which could simulate the real life scenarios in target language countries. We will further illustrate, in 2.4 and 2.5, how our product can help users to solve their problems.
1.4 Knowledge Set
1.4.1 Linguistic Knowledge
1) At each scene of our product, users will have the opportunity to pick up certain amount of vocabulary knowledge in terms of word meaning. This aligns with the concept of “lexical semantics” (Mihalicek & Wilson, 2011c, p. 243). Specifically, for each target L2 word we will provide concise and comprehendible L1 translations using everyday expressions. We might use “dictionary-style definitions” (Mihalicek & Wilson, 2011c, p. 243) and provide relevant examples for illustration if necessary.
2) We also intend to explain to the users how the meaning of sentences they learn in our product are constituted by the meaning of words. This aligns with the “principle of compositionality” (Mihalicek & Wilson, 2011d, p. 255) which stresses the importance of meaning of individual words and the syntactic rules that combines words together to form sentences. As pointed out by Mihalicek and Wilson (2011d), the principle of compositionality could enable speakers to “produce and understand an infinite number of sentences” (p. 256). Accordingly, we consider it necessary to teach users some simple syntactic rules.
3) As just mentioned, learner will learn certain syntactic rules during their VR learning experience. Specifically, our explanation will touch upon one of the “syntactic properties”, i.e. “word order” (Mihalicek & Wilson, 2011d, p. 201). We will not delve too deep in this respect and will only explain some base pattern like SVO, i.e. subject, verb, and object.
4) In terms of syntax, another set of knowledge is the syntactic categories (Mihalicek & Wilson, 2011b) of the target L2 language. Users will be introduced to some basic syntactic categories, like noun, determiner, adjective, adverb, etc. In this way, users will come to know the function of words and phrases in each sentence so that they could better understand how each L2 sentences is constructed. We will organically embed syntactic category learning in each scene.
1.4.2 Communicative Competence
1) The knowledge set of our product is also inspired by the communicative competence model by Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983). This model proposes three categories of communicative competence, i.e. grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. We take special interest in the first two categories. According to Canale and Swain (1980), grammatical competence includes “knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics, and phonology” (p. 29). This big category encapsulates many of the elements we drew from Mihalicek and Wilson (2011a-d). However, given the utilitarian nature of the purpose of our product and possible limited learning time available to the users, we do not want to generate more burden to the users by incorporating learning content in the morphological domain.
2) Canale and Swain (1980) further brought up the concept of sociolinguistic competence which they divided into two set of rules “sociocultural rules of use” and “rules of discourse” (p. 30). In terms of sociocultural rules of use, Canale and Swain (1980) noted the importance for learners to learn the appropriate use of their expressions determined by “contextual factors such as topic, role of participants, setting, and norms of interaction” (p.30). This category of communicative competence is also highly relevant to the knowledge set of our product because as they practice communicating with virtual characters in different scenes, we want them to familiarize themselves with the topics, the environment, and the culture unique to the scenes.
3) Canale (1983) later added to the model a fourth category, namely discourse competence which was built on the understanding of rules of discourse by Canale and Swain (1980) with a particular focus on “cohesion” and “coherence” (p. 30). Discourse competence stresses the capacity of learners to how to incorporate their expressions cohesively into the overall written or spoken texts Canale (1983). This is also a key element of the knowledge set of our product because users’ ability to produce cohesive turn taking essential to making meaningful and purposeful real-life interactions in the target country where they will travel.
1.5 Theory of Change
1.5.1 The Use of VR in Language Education
The educational affordances of VR in Language Education have gradually received considerate scholarly attention and been recognized by many (Bonner, & Reinders, 2018; Chen, 2016; Purushotma, 2005; Ranalli, 2008; Schwienhorst, 2002; Sherman, & Craig, 2003; Schwienhorst, 2002; Taguchi, 2011; Wang & Braman, 2009; Wehner et al, 2011; Wilang & Soermphongsuwat, 2018). For example, the study by Chen (2016) demonstrated that VR could facilitate students’ language learning in different linguistic domains, including “phonology, morphology, vocabulary, and syntax” (p. 644). The study by Wilang and Soermphongsuwat (2018) as well as Ranalli (2008) also report that VR could contribute to vocabulary learning. Therefore, it is not necessary to doubt the potential to apply VR to luggage education. However, it is important to understand the underlying mechanisms at work which explain why we think VR could contribute to language learning. We will begin then by briefly discussing the immersive nature of VR.
1.5.2 VR and Immersion
Building on the perspective of Wang and Braman (2009), Chen (2016) noted that VR technologies could immerse users in learning settings where their engagement in language learning activities could be promoted by the realistic nature of VR. To further illustrate the importance of immersion by resorting to the understanding by Sherman and Craig (2003), Chen (2016) argued that users could achieve “physical immersion” by interpreting “visual, auditory, and haptic cues to gather information while using their proprioceptive systems to navigate and control objects in a synthetic environment” (p. 638).
1.5.3 VR Bridging Language and Culture
According to Godwin-Jones, (2016), one language could exert powerful influences on its native speakers’ perspectives and values to the extent that regarding the same cultural activity, L2 learners of the language might have drastically different understanding compared to the native speakers. On the other hand, “culture permeates all aspects of language” (Godwin-Jones, 2016, p. 175). Therefore, culture and language learning should not be severed. To develop L2 learners’ language proficiency in communicative situations, it is imperative to first embed their learning experience in authentic target language environment so as to achieve certain degrees of cultural familiarity.
1.5.4 VR generating Simulated Roles
Taguchi (2011) noted that immersive virtual learning environments allow language learners to assume various roles appropriate for different situations and engage in useful communicative practices. Building on the work by Biocca (1997), Schwienhorst (2002) emphasized the concept of “self-presence” which further generates “self-consciousness” and “identity” (p. 201). Similarly, Wehner et al. (2011) argued for the need to create identities for the learners to be assimilated into the cultural environment. Downey (2011) explained that in less immersive learning environment like traditional classrooms, learners are less motivated to communicate because the identity they take on do not strongly suggest need to do so. In contrast, in immersive VR environments, learners are more willing or obliged to communicate as much as required by their new identities.
1.5.5 VR Generating Positive Attitudes
Scholars have noted the ability of VR to generate positive attitudes in language learning. Taguchi (2011) argued that VR can also help learners to establish affective ties with the virtual environments so that they would become more motived to learn. Moreover, citing from Purushotma (2005), Ranalli (2008) argued that one way to promote cognitive engagement of users’ language learning in simulated environment is to utilized more entertainment elements to reduce their workload and pressure. One other way to generate positive attitude in VR environment is to assign appropriately challenging tasks to learners can help to boost their confidence and motivation (Wehner et al., 2011). Although scholars did not explicitly state the causality, another possible reason VR can build up learners’ positive attitudes is that there is that making mistakes in VR environments is not likely to bring about consequences because after all VR is still not reality (Skarredghost, 2017; Taguchi, 2011).
1.5.6 VR Generating Cognitive Engagement
Building on the work by Gadelha (2018), Bonner and Reinders (2018) brought forth another perspective by adding that VR environment could inhibit visually and auditorily distracting factors by making most of the VR content relevant to learning. Inspired by the work of Klein (1986), Wehner et al. (2011) stressed to generate in the learners the need to communicate will push them to move beyond their current level of target language proficiency to reach a higher level in different linguistic domains. This idea is also reflected in Input hypothesis of Krashen (1998). Schwienhorst (2002) and Ranalli (2008) also mentioned that VR immersion could give rise to mental engagement and allow users to take advantage of tools and resources to mediate the learning process.
1.6 Inspirations from Top Performers
1.6.1 Mondly VR
In 2017, Mondly initiated a language education app that provides users with immersive learning experience built in VR. This app allows users, with the help of VR headset, to engage in nearly authentic conversation in simulated real life scenes with human like characters (PR Newswire, 2017). These characters are essentially what Mondly called “chatbots” powered by “automatic voice detection system” that enables “calibrates to the room's background noise, and it ignores unintentional sounds” (PR Newswire, 2017) so as to ensure that the interaction between the users and the characters is natural and smooth. Presently, there are 30 languages available in Mondly VR (see Picture 1) and the learning of each language can be experienced in a number of scenes (see Picture 2 for example) where through talking to a character, the user can receive training in terms of pronunciation, lexical meaning, and sentence production, etc.
The basic and core functions of Mundly VR can be illustrated in the following case. Assuming the user has chosen to study Japanese and showed up in the scene at a restaurant where a waitress was standing in front as shown in Picture 3. In this scene, the waitress was greeting the user in Japanese as shown in the red window on the left of the screen where a blue window popped up containing three responses in Japanese for the user to choose. Each response will work but lead to different development of the conversation. The user could have access to the pronunciation of each response by clicking on a corresponding blue speaker and the English translation (not shown in Picture3) by hanging over the response. In each scene, the user could communicate with different characters. For example, in Picture 3, the lady behind the waitress was making a “Let’s Talk” signal telling the user that she is ready to communicate.
Note. Pictures 1-4 were adapted from “Learn Languages in VR with Mondly for Daydream VR! Hands-On Review with Japanese and Spanish! [Video file]” by Daydream District, (2017, August 11).
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m5h8iWLto8
1.6.2 House of Language VR
Another VR language learning app that draws our attention is House of Language VR. According to Unimersiv (2018), it is an VR-based app that allow users to learn useful vocabulary in one of three languages (see Picture 5) after they enter one of the many learning scenes (see Picture 6). The mechanics of House of Language VR is not complicated. When users entere a scene where they will be, guided by the cartoon character Mr. Woo (see Picture 7), they were given vision in all directions and allowed to choose each object before they can hear and say the name of it (Devpost, 2015). For example, in the scene depicted in Picture 7, Mr. Woo is asking the user to find the object signified by the German phrase “das Auto” (the car) while also providing an image of the object and a native-like pronunciation of the phrase. In the scene depicted in Picture 8, the user successfully found the target object and was presented many stars as the reward.
Note. Pictures 5-8 were adapted from “Gear VR LANGUAGE Learning: House of Languages Review (Free) [Video file]. Spekachu, (2016, March 17). Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thvjp8BCHsk
1.7 Feature Comparison
Compared with our product, both Mondly VR and House of Language have some issues that need to be dealt with. We will start with the
1.7.1 issues of Mondly VR.
1) Issues of Mondly VR
To begin with, Mondly VR is not friendly towards users with only L2 proficiency with beginner level or lower (Nelson, 2017). Each lesson or conversation begins with short phrases and sentences and the difficulty level could only rise as the conversation progresses. But for beginner users, this could be highly problematic because although they are provided with L1 translations of the L2 expressions, they very likely lack the basic knowledge in terms of lexicon and syntactic rules so that they could not learn how the L2 components together build up meaning (Nelson, 2017). Thus, they could only learn the correspondence between the sound strings of the L2 expressions with the L1 translations. To deal with this issue, we embed in our product the features that allows users to learn some basic syntactic rules and lexical semantics (as discussed in 2.3.1) that are closely associate with each scene.
2) A second issue we found with Mondly VR is that although users could choose to enter different scenes, talk to different characters in each scene, and have sight that cover all directions, their experience in the VR world is still rather abrupt. In other words, the absence of transition from one scene to another as well as from character to another makes users’ experience less authentic than reality. For example, users could not walk out of the restaurant and enter a train station. In addition, they could not walk away from one character towards another, rather they just suddenly appear in front of the latter. To address this issue, our product will allow users to walk freely in the VR world much as they can in reality so as to render the learning experience more authentic and immersive. Such high level of immersion and authenticity could help to enhance users’ engagement and motivation. (Chen 2016)
3) A third issue with Mondly VR is that the previously mentioned “automatic voice detection system” is far from being perfect. In some cases, it could only detect several words leaving the rest of what the user has said unprocessed (Digital Trends, 2017). Even when the user tries to slow down the rate of their output to give the system enough time to process each word, there are still error in terms of transcription (Digital Trends, 2017). To overcome this issue, we have to incorporate more advanced voice recognition system that could be tailored to different accents, rates of speech, and levels of clarity.
1.7.2. Issues of House of Language VR
1) The biggest issue of House of Language VR is that it only promotes users’ language learning in the lexical domain as opposed to the discourse domain which is the focus of Mondly VR. Users lexical knowledge is important because the lexicons constitute the codes we transmit during communication. But if a VR app aimed to help users to cultivate communicative competence, the learning experience need reach out to the discourse domain. Therefore, the learning in the various domains including semantics, syntax and communicative competence (as discussed in 2.3.1) is essential to our product.
2) As in Mondly VR, users cannot move around in House of Language VR with only unlimited eye sight. As mentioned before, users’ free movement in VR settings could promote the level of authenticity and immersion. This, in turn, postively affect users’ engagement and motivation (Chen 2016)). Accordingly, it will be addressed in our product.
3) Another practical issue with House of Language VR is that only three languages are available for users to learn. This definitely will limit its capacity to meet learners’ need for simple reason that a user who is about to learn L2 Chinese will definitely not choose this app. Therefore, our product will incorporate the learning experience of at least ten popular languages of the present world.
In a word, by addressing the issues discussed above, our product combines the best of both Mondly VR and House of Language VR and aims to achieve a higher level. Specifically, it will provide users with learning experience covering semantics, syntax and communicative competence (as discussed in 2.3.1). In addition, it will allow users to move and interact freely in the VR world in order to better engage and motivate the users by higher levels of authenticity and immersion. Moreover, our product will adopt highly advanced voiced recognition system capable of smooth and accurate voice processing given the difference in users’ accents, rates of speech, and levels of clarity. Last but not least, we will make sure that enough languages are available in our app to satisfy the diverse learning need of users.
2. Experiencing the product
2.1 Overview
Please refer to our product prototype which is a video file submitted along with this document.
2.2 Core Function Description
As mentioned before, our product allows users to learn practical second language skills in VR environments. Therefore, in order to describe its core functions, we will present our product as an organic and authentic VR learning environment and a useful language learning tool.
2.2.1 An Organic and Authentic VR Learning Environment
There will be a number of language available in our product, including English, Japanese, German, Korean, and Chinese, etc. For each language, we will create a VR environment simulating the settings of the target language country. Users could enter the corresponding VR environment by click on the name of the country (we choose Korea as the target country for the demo). Each VR environment is designed as a virtual world (see the Picture 9 below for a panoramic view) so that users could move around freely to every corner within it as if they are really experience a tour somewhere in the world. For each of these VR environments. There will be 4 scenes (for the demo only; more will be available should our product be promoted for commercial purposes), including Restaurant, Market, Hotel, and Street. We choose to demo these 4 scenes because we assume our users would very much likely go to these places if they travel to the target country. Entrance into and exit from each scene is achieved by walking through the front door (unless that scene is based outdoors) which connects the outer space of each environment and each scene within that environment. After walking into a certain scene, users could interact with various avatars and objects and it is mostly during these processes the language learning takes place. Each scene where learning experience is provided is marked by a sign indicating its name. As for the other buildings or places without such markers, no learning experience is available.
2.2.2 A Useful Language Learning Tool
Once the user enters a certain scene, the language learning experience begins. The learning experience could be activated in a number of ways. For example, when approaching a waitress in a Korean restaurant, the user could start a conversion with the waitress in Korean, asking about the recommended dish and the price of it. The formulaic patterns the user picks up could be very useful when he/she really travels to Korea and eat at a local restaurant. In addition, by touching the avatar, the user could activate its explanation mode which allows it to explain the syntactic components of the sentence just uttered by itself or the user and how the meaning of each word is syntactically combined to form the meaning of the sentence. The user could also have access to the Korean terms and explanations of items in each scene by touching those items. All of the learning content will be presented in pop-up windows where the Korean expressions, their corresponding Korean pronunciations, and the English translation will be provided. Moreover, our product, as mentioned previously, is equipped with highly advanced voice recognition system which allows smooth and accurate translation of users’ oral response so that the built-in chat bot could accordingly come up with intelligent responses to carry on the conversation. Due to the limited time and technical resources available, we will not include the voice recognition in the demo and report.
2.3 Procedures
Please see the flowchart below for an overview for the learning procedures involved in our product.
2.4 Interfaces
2.4.1 Welcome Board
After choosing the target language, in this case Korean, users will be sent to the welcome board (see Picture 10) where they will be introduced to three key features integral to their learning experience. The features are represented by three cubes through which users could access three modes of learning in each scene. Touching the red cube will activate avatar who will produce oral and verbal utterances in Korean appropriate for each scene. Touching the blue cube will bring out the responses in Korean users could use to rely to the avatar. Touching Green the cube will bring forth the Korean terms and explanation for the items unique to each scene. These three cubes will be placed in relevant spots in each scene.
2.4.2 Learning Scenes
In this section we will provide a detailed description of how learning could occur in each learning scenes. As the modes of learning does not vary across different scenes, we will focus on describing the learning process in one scene, in this case, the restaurant. At the entrance of the restaurant, by touching the red cube beside the avatar waitress (see Picture 11), users could activate the avatar who would, in turn, say “어서오세요. 편하신 곳에 앉으세요” (Welcome. Please, have a seat). This could be helpful in introducing users to the way Korean waitresses greet customers and to Korean restaurant culture because in Korea, users do not have to wait for the seat and can sit wherever they want.
After entering the restaurant, users could approach another avatar waitress and press the red cube (see Picture 12). The avatar waitress would then say주문 하시겠습니까? (Do you want to order?). The situation here is that users might not know what to eat so they could touch the blue cube (see Picture 13) and read the script on the pop-up window to ask the avatar waitress맛있는 음식 추천해주세요? (Can you recommend the delicious food?) Here, 맛있는 음식 means delicious food； 추천해주세요 means please recommend. In this case, users to could learn how the meanings of Korean words could be combined to form the meaning of a sentence and Korean word order. After the avatar waitress has made her recommendation, users could say저는 (불고기) 주세요.(Yes, give me (bulgogi)). Users could also switch bulgogi for other food name in order to make new orders. Other Korean food names and name for the ingredients could be accessed by touching the green cube as shown in Picture 14 below. This is also a great opportunity to familiarize the users with Korean vocabulary.
A disclaimer should be made here that given the limited time and resources available, we could only incorporate limited amounts of linguistic features. However, based on the description of learning scenes above, our product definitely has the potential to help users to learn all the components of the knowledge set in section 2.4.
Reference
Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg’s dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/biocca2.html
Bonner, E. & Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practical ideas. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 33-53
Butler, Y. G. (2013). Bilingualism/ Multilingualism and Second-Language Acquisition. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Ed.). The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism, Second Edition (pp. 109-136). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Canale, M & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and Communication, 2-27. London: Longman.
Chen Y. (2016). The Effects of Virtual Reality Learning Environment on Student Cognitive and Linguistic Development. Asia-Pacific Edu Res, 25(4), 637–646.
Daydream District. (2017, August 11). Learn Languages in VR with Mondly for Daydream VR! Hands-On Review with Japanese and Spanish! [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m5h8iWLto8
Devpost. (2015, April 20). House of Languages. Retrieved from https://vrjam.devpost.com/submissions/36280-house-of-languages
Gadelha, R. (2018). Revolutionizing Education: The promise of virtual reality. Childhood Education, 94(1), 40- 43.
Gent, E. (2016, October 3). Are Virtual Reality Headsets Safe for Kids? Live Science. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/56346-are-virtual-reality-headsets-safe-for-kids.html
Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Culture, language learning and technology. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Ed.), The routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 173-184)
Hill, S. (2016, April 23). Is VR too dangerous for kids? We asked the experts. Digital Trends. Retrieved from https://www.digitaltrends.com/virtual-reality/is-vr-safe-for-kids-we-asked-the-experts/
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S, D., Long, M. H., and Scarcella, C. R. (1979). Age, rate, and eventual attainment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 13 (4): 573–582.
Krashen, S.D. (1998). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Long, M. H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 251–285.
Long, M. H. (2005). Problems with supposed counter-evidence to the Critical Period Hypothesis. IRAL, 43, 287–317
Lowenthal, K & Bull, D (1984). Imitation of foreign sounds: What is the effect of age? Language and Speech, 2, 95–7.
McKie, R. (2017, October 28). Virtual reality headsets could put children’s health at risk. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/28/virtual-reality-headset-children-cognitive-problems
Mihalicek, V. & Wilson, C. (2011a). Syntactic properties. In V. Mihalicek & C. Wilson (Ed.), Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics (pp. 201-210). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Mihalicek, V. & Wilson, C. (2011b). Syntactic categories. In V. Mihalicek & C. Wilson (Ed.), Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics (pp. 215-221). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Mihalicek, V. & Wilson, C. (2011c). Lexical semantics: The meaning of words. In V. Mihalicek & C. Wilson (Ed.), Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics (pp. 243-250). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Mihalicek, V. & Wilson, C. (2011d). Compositional semantics: Putting meanings together. T. In V. Mihalicek & C. Wilson (Ed.), Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics (pp. 255-259). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Nelson, K. (2017, March 10). Learn Languages VR: Our first take. Digital Trends. Retrieved from https://www.digitaltrends.com/virtual-reality/mondly-virtual-reality-languages-samsung-gear-vr-rosetta-stone/
Olson, L. L. & Samuels, S. J. (1973). The relationship between age and accuracy of foreign language pronunciation. Journal of Educational Research, 66, 263–7.
PR Newswire. (2017). Mondly Launches Virtual Reality for Learning Languages, Powered by Chatbots. Retrieved from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mondly-launches-virtual-reality-for-learning-languages-powered-by-chatbots-300409481.html
Purushotma, R. (2005). Commentary: You’re not studying, you’re just . . .. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 80–96.
Ranalli, J. (2008). Learning English with the Sims: Exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5), 441-455.
Schwienhorst, K. (2002). Why virtual, why environments? Implementing virtual reality concepts in computer-assisted language learning. Simulation & Gaming, 33(2), 196-209.
Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. (2003). Understanding virtual reality. New York: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Skarredghost. (2017, September 15). Mondly VR review: a nice early demo for the future of language learning. The Ghost Howls. Retrieved from https://skarredghost.com/2017/09/15/mondly-vr-review-nice-early-demo-future-language-learning/
Snow, C. E. and Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114–28.
Spekachu. (2016, March 17). Gear VR LANGUAGE Learning: House of Languages Review (Free) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thvjp8BCHsk
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310
Unimersiv. (2018). House of Languages. Retrieved from https://unimersiv.com/review/house-of-languages/
Wang, Y., & Braman, J. (2009). Extending the classroom through second life. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 235–247.
Wehner, A. K., Gump, A. W., & Downey, S. (2011). The effects of Second Life on the motivation of undergraduate students learning a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 277-289.
Wilang, J. D. & Soermphongsuwat, A. (2018). Virtual reality for undergraduate English language learners: A formative study. Paper presented at 49th ISAGA Annual Conference 2018, Mahidol University (Salaya Campus), Nakorn Pathom, Thailand. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED585191
Comments