A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Integration in English as a Foreign Language Education

Introduction

The rapid advancement of new technologies and the growing emphasis on collaboration have revolutionized educational practices, giving rise to innovative approaches to learning. Among these, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) has garnered significant attention, enabling learners to engage in a dynamic, meaning-making process through peer interactions facilitated by digital tools. Technology has become indispensable today, permeating nearly every aspect of daily life and playing a particularly transformative role in education. Within this context, technology integration into language learning has emerged as a prominent focus of research in recent years. However, the success of such integration often hinges on teachers’ experiences and emotions, which can profoundly influence how technology is utilized in the classroom (Nezakatgoo et al., 2025; Soleimani et al., 2020; Taheri et al., 2024).

Information technology's quick development, fueled by the pervasive use of computers and mobile devices, has profoundly transformed language learning landscapes over the past two decades. Within this context, technology-enhanced language learning (TELL) has evolved significantly, spawning specialized approaches such as mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) and integrative computer-assisted language learning (CALL). MALL has emerged as a particularly valuable tool for international English learners, providing flexible, on-the-go access to learning resources. Similarly, integrative CALL has demonstrated measurable improvements in student outcomes, notably in linguistic accuracy and fluency (Wu, 2019). Concurrently, technological progress and globalization have amplified the global prominence of English as a lingua franca, rendering proficiency in the language increasingly essential (Chen, 2020). As technology continues to evolve, its integration into education holds immense potential to enhance learning experiences (Naji et al., 2023), prompting many nations to prioritize foreign language proficiency within their lifelong learning frameworks (Chien et al., 2020).

In recent years, immersive technologies—namely virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR)—have garnered increasing attention as innovative tools for education and training. VR creates fully computer-generated, three-dimensional settings accessible via head-mounted displays (HMDs), motion-tracking apparatus, and haptic feedback devices; by replacing all sensory input with synthetic stimuli, it affords users a profound sense of “presence” divorced from their physical surroundings (Asad et al., 2021; Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016). In contrast, AR enhances real‐world perception by superimposing digital elements, such as 3D models, annotations, or multimedia, onto live environment views, thereby preserving contextual grounding while enriching information delivery (Azuma, 2017; Billinghurst et al., 2015). At opposite ends of Milgram and Kishino’s (1994) reality-virtuality continuum, AR occupies intermediary positions blending actual and virtual content, whereas VR resides at the fully virtual terminus. Both modalities share core technical infrastructures—real-time rendering engines, spatial‐tracking systems, and interactive user interfaces—but diverge fundamentally in their mediation of the user’s environment: VR through total sensory substitution, AR through integrative overlay (Billinghurst et al., 2015; Hu et al., 2021). Traditional EFL classrooms typically depend on teacher-led lectures, printed materials, and face-to-face interaction. These methods often emphasize rote memorization and standardized curricula, which, while beneficial for foundational learning, may lack the contextual richness and authentic language exposure necessary for optimal communicative competence (Liu et al., 2023). In such settings, opportunities to practice language in situationally meaningful contexts can be limited, potentially impeding students’ ability to transfer classroom knowledge to real‐world communication tasks. By contrast, AR and VR introduce interactive, immersive, and adaptive environments that can address these limitations (Naji et al., 2023). AR applications enable learners to manipulate virtual labels, diagrams, or dialogues anchored to physical objects, turning a static image or textbook page into a dynamic learning experience. VR environments, accessed through HMDs, transport students into simulated contexts—ordering meals in a virtual café, navigating a foreign street market, or engaging in a scripted interview—where they can rehearse language spontaneously and receive immediate feedback. Such multisensory, experiential learning heightens engagement and supports deeper encoding and long-term retention of vocabulary and structures (Karacan & Polat, 2022). Moreover, AR tends to facilitate peer collaboration by allowing multiple learners to view and interact with the same augmented objects in real-time, fostering negotiation of meaning and collective problem‐solving. VR, on the other hand, often promotes learner autonomy: individuals can explore scenarios at their own pace, experiment with language use without social inhibitions, and repeat activities until mastery is achieved. Although initial studies highlight these advantages, empirical investigations into AR’s specific effects on collaborative learning outcomes and VR’s precise impact on retention compared to traditional methods remain in their infancy, underscoring the need for rigorous, longitudinal research (Karacan & Polat, 2022).

The transformative potential of information technology extends beyond AR and VR to include gamification, which leverages game-like elements to heighten student motivation and engagement. Since Ivan Sutherland pioneered VR in 1965 with the invention of the head-mounted display, its educational applications have expanded, incorporating tools such as motion-tracking devices and, more recently, artificial intelligence (AI). AI-driven VR systems can generate intelligent avatars and realistic simulations, enabling adaptive, student-centered language learning experiences (Chaudhary, 2019; Oyelere et al., 2020).
For instance, VR allows learners to engage in dialogues with AI-powered characters that respond dynamically, fostering independence and enhancing interactional competence (Shi et al., 2024). The affordability of VR applications has broadened access to these tools, yet their successful integration into education demands meticulous planning, clear pedagogical objectives, and well-defined implementation strategies (Hung et al., 2023). Challenges persist, however, as developing high-quality 3D VR content is costly and time-intensive, and many educators lack the technical expertise required for effective design. Nevertheless, research consistently demonstrates that VR surpasses traditional methods in boosting student engagement and motivation, offering a compelling case for its adoption (Chien et al., 2020).

The rise of online education, accelerated by the global pandemic, has further underscored the relevance of technologies like AR. AR applications have gained traction across diverse educational contexts, blending physical objects with digital overlays—such as interactive 3D models or annotations—to create enriched learning experiences (Demirdag
et al., 2024). This surge reflects a broader shift in the twenty-first century toward a learner-driven educational culture that favors digital content and hands-on practice over passive instruction (Lopez-Belmonte et al., 2023). AR’s versatility makes it suitable for both formal classroom settings and informal self-directed study, reassuring educators of its practical utility (Topu et al., 2023). Studies highlight AR’s capacity to enhance visualization of abstract concepts, support individualized learning paths, and facilitate real-world communication skills, all of which contribute to improved vocabulary retention, motivation, and student-teacher interaction (Khan et al., 2023; Topu et al., 2023). For English as a Second Language (L2) teachers, AR introduces innovative teaching environments that spark student interest, sharpen critical thinking, and elevate academic performance (Demirdag
et al., 2024; Lin & Wang, 2022). Learners report higher satisfaction, confidence, and enjoyment, which drive active participation and sustained engagement (Chen et al., 2020). Unlike many online platforms that offer limited interactivity, AR and VR deliver immersive, adaptive experiences that align with modern pedagogical goals (Liu, 2024).

Despite these advancements, an over-reliance on technology poses notable risks, including the potential to undermine critical thinking skills by prioritizing automated processes over analytical reasoning and exacerbating the digital divide, where students without adequate access to technology are disproportionately disadvantaged. Research indicates that excessive dependence on AI-driven tools can diminish students’ ability to engage in independent analytical reasoning and critical decision-making (Zhai et al., 2024). This over-reliance may lead to a preference for automated solutions, reducing opportunities for students to develop higher-order cognitive skills essential for problem-solving (George
et al., 2024). Furthermore, the digital divide remains a significant barrier, with studies showing that unequal access to technology widens educational disparities, particularly for students from underserved communities (Van Dijk, 2020). This disparity underscores an urgent need for educators and policymakers to implement strategies that bridge this gap, ensuring equitable learning opportunities for all students (Selwyn, 2021).

Given the profound implications of these technological advancements, this systematic review analyzed the effectiveness, challenges, and potential benefits of integrating AR and VR into English language education, drawing on literature published between 2019 and 2024. By synthesizing findings from selected studies, this research provides a comprehensive overview of current trends, methodologies, and outcomes related to language skill development and learner engagement. It also examines critical barriers, including accessibility issues, technological constraints, and pedagogical shortcomings, such as the need for teacher training and curriculum alignment. The significance of this study lies in its potential to empower educators, researchers, and policymakers with evidence-based insights to optimize the use of AR and VR in language instruction. This research highlights how AR and VR can revolutionize English language learning by fostering immersive, student-centered environments and addressing the gaps in traditional and online teaching methods, such as low engagement and limited interactivity. Moreover, it identifies underexplored areas, such as the long-term impact of these technologies on linguistic proficiency and their scalability across diverse educational contexts, proposing avenues for future inquiry. Continuous evaluation of these tools is essential to ensure their alignment with rapid technological advancements and evolving educational needs, making this study a vital step toward shaping the future of language education.

Literature Review

Integrating AR and VR into EFL education has garnered substantial scholarly attention. Systematic reviews have elucidated these immersive technologies’ transformative potential and persistent challenges. Recent systematic reviews underscored AR’s preferential application in vocabulary acquisition, particularly through mobile, marker-based platforms that superimposed lexical content onto real-world contexts to enhance retention via contextual learning. For instance, Schorr et al.’s (2024) analysis of 40 empirical studies (2016–2023) revealed that AR implementations frequently prioritized vocabulary training (e.g., multimedia overlays of lexical items) but lacked pedagogical alignment with broader language domains such as syntax or discourse. While their derived design principles—emphasized contextual learning, multimedia integration guided by the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML), and collaborative instructional models—demonstrated enhanced engagement, the authors cautioned that AR’s efficacy remained constrained by insufficient theoretical grounding and uneven classroom integration (Schorr et al., 2024). This sentiment resonated with Parmaxi & Demetriou’s (2020) earlier review of 54 publications (2014–2019), which mapped AR’s alignment with 21st-century skills (KSAVE framework) but critiqued the field’s overreliance on mobile platforms (23.9% vocabulary focus) and neglect of learning theories. Their work highlighted a critical paradox: Despite AR’s capacity for immersive skill-building, studies seldom addressed long-term retention or ecological validity, limiting translatability to diverse educational settings (Parmaxi & Demetriou, 2020). In contrast to AR’s lexical focus, VR-assisted language learning (VRALL) demonstrated pronounced efficacy in oral and aural skill development. Deng & Yu’s (2022) systematic analysis of 23 studies identified consistent improvements in pronunciation, listening, and speaking proficiency, attributing these gains to VR’s capacity for simulating authentic communicative scenarios. However, mixed results in vocabulary, reading, and writing—mediated by variables such as learner proficiency and immersion levels—underscored the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to mitigate cognitive load and optimize task design (Deng & Yu, 2022). Expanding the scope, Ece et al. (2023) narrowed their review to 21 tertiary-level EFL studies, identifying VR’s strengths in fostering cultural immersion, oral proficiency, and creative self-efficacy through strategies like progressive question prompts and peer tutoring. Despite significant performance boosts, their findings remained confined to university cohorts, with limited exploration of cost-effective hardware or younger learners (Ece et al., 2023). Broader syntheses of AR/VR integration revealed convergent themes. Huang et al. (2021) consolidated findings from 88 studies, emphasizing immersive experiences as central to enhancing motivation, reducing anxiety, and improving learning outcomes, particularly among university students. However, they critiqued the field’s methodological heterogeneity, overreliance on qualitative designs, and lack of teacher training initiatives—barriers that impeded scalable implementation (Huang et al., 2021). Similarly, Peixoto et al. (2021) employed PRISMA guidelines to affirm immersive VR’s superiority over traditional methods in boosting learner motivation and satisfaction. However, they identified persistent gaps: small sample sizes, underexplored mixed-reality applications, and insufficient longitudinal data to assess sustained efficacy (Peixoto et al., 2021). Christou et al. (2025) extended this critique to XR technologies, noting a disproportionate focus on VR (28/33 studies) in foreign language education, with AR and mixed reality implementations remaining nascent. While XR tools enhanced authentic context provision and oral proficiency, their review stressed systemic barriers such as teacher unfamiliarity and explicit classroom orchestration (Christou et al., 2025).

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) is driving profound transformations across multiple sectors, with education being a key beneficiary, mainly through the adoption of VR and AR as transformative tools (Kaur et al., 2024). AR uses smartphones or glasses to enhance real-world settings by overlaying digital information, such as text, images, or 3D models, onto physical environments (Azuma, 1997; Bacca et al., 2014). In contrast, VR creates entirely immersive, computer-generated worlds that users experience through headsets, effectively isolating them from their physical surroundings (Radianti et al., 2019). These technologies are revolutionizing education by delivering interactive, immersive learning experiences that overcome traditional barriers such as geographic distance, limited resources, or socioeconomic constraints, thus democratizing access to high-quality educational content (Radianti et al., 2019; Villena-Taranilla et al., 2022). AR and VR platforms significantly enhance student engagement and deepen comprehension by integrating simulations, detailed 3D visualizations, and rich audio-visual elements, outperforming conventional teaching methods in fostering critical skills and knowledge retention (Merchant et al., 2013; Parong & Mayer, 2018).

Empirical evidence underscores the superior potential of VR in specific educational contexts. For instance, Hung et al. (2023) conducted a study comparing VR-based English lessons with traditional and AR-supported approaches, finding that VR’s highly immersive and interactive design led to better learning outcomes among young learners (Parong & Mayer, 2018). This improvement was particularly evident in increased student confidence and the perceived relevance of the material, likely due to VR’s ability to simulate realistic conversational scenarios and provide immediate feedback within a distraction-free environment. Similarly, Annamalai et al. (2022) explored the broader benefits of AR and VR in English language education, identifying enhanced learning outcomes, greater student motivation, and seamless integration with bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies as key advantages. They also noted that these technologies promote active learning by encouraging students to interact dynamically with content rather than passively absorb it. However, not all findings are unequivocal. Soleimani et al. (2020) designed an innovative classroom where students leveraged AR and VR for collaborative language activities. AR-enhanced peer support, while VR sparked dynamic idea-sharing. Educators valued AR for fostering help among students and VR for enabling collective knowledge-building, viewing both as a means to promote independence and collaboration. Motivated, they aimed to blend these tools to enrich learning through connectivity and imagination.

Dhimolea et al. (2022), in a comprehensive review of 32 studies on VR in language learning, found that while repeated VR exposure improved contextual vocabulary acquisition and language retention, its overall effectiveness remained inconsistent across diverse learner groups and settings. Additionally, Poupard et al. (2024) analyzed 36 studies. They highlighted a critical limitation: VR often induces cognitive overload, especially among novice learners, due to the intense sensory input and navigational demands of fully immersive environments. In contrast, AR strikes a better balance for beginners by augmenting rather than replacing the real world, though its effectiveness wanes for intermediate learners who require more complex linguistic challenges. These mixed results suggest that while AR and VR hold immense promise, their educational impact hinges on cognitive load management, learner proficiency levels, and physical comfort during prolonged VR use, necessitating further investigation (Hung et al., 2023).

VR’s potential in second language acquisition is particularly compelling due to its capacity to create realistic, interactive environments tailored to language practice. Tai et al. (2020) emphasized that VR provides authentic contexts, such as virtual marketplaces or social settings, where learners can rehearse language skills in scenarios mimicking real-life interactions. This immersion minimizes external distractions, requires minimal instructor expertise to facilitate, and fosters collaboration among learners, heightening engagement and motivation. VR tools are also relatively portable and cost-effective compared to traditional lab-based setups, broadening access to language education (Ebadi & Ebadijalal, 2020). Specific linguistic benefits include improved speaking and listening skills, with Chien et al. (2020) noting reduced errors and heightened creativity among learners attributed to VR's interactive realism. Furthermore, VR enhances knowledge retention by offering memorable, experiential learning opportunities that outstrip static textbook methods (Yeh et al., 2020).
In English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, VR fosters immersion, reduces speaking anxiety, and supports struggling learners through vivid, contextual visuals that manage cognitive demands effectively (Hoang et al., 2022; Luan et al., 2024). However, nuances exist within VR modalities: Desktop VR outperforms high-immersive VR in vocabulary retention due to lower physical discomfort, while gamified VR systems yield better outcomes than non-gamified counterparts by leveraging motivational game mechanics (Luan et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2023). Mobile VR, meanwhile, excels in specialized domains like medical English, improving communication skills and proficiency (Derakhshan et al., 2024). Despite these advantages, challenges persist, including high initial costs, the complexity of designing VR content, and the need for affordable, scalable solutions (Liu et al., 2023).

AR, by contrast, integrates virtual elements with the physical world in real time, using technologies like object recognition to overlay computer-generated content, such as annotations or 3D models, onto tangible settings, engaging multiple senses to enrich learning (Naji et al., 2023). AR boosts motivation, sustains attention, and accelerates skill development in education, though it faces hurdles like usability issues, instructor reluctance, and technical glitches (Chang et al., 2020). By blending virtual and real environments,
AR enhances comprehension and facilitates real-time collaboration, such as sharing annotated views during lessons (Naji et al., 2023). Its use in language education is growing, with adoption expected to rise as instructors gain proficiency with digital tools. However, engaging, pedagogically sound AR content remains a barrier to widespread implementation (Karacan & Polat, 2022).

Using AR and VR in the classroom, especially for teaching and learning English, has gained significant attention due to their immersive and interactive nature, which holds immense potential to enhance language acquisition and retention. These technologies offer significant potential to enhance language acquisition, retention, and engagement, transforming traditional pedagogical approaches. Despite their promise, a comprehensive understanding of their effectiveness and practical application in English language learning (ELL) remains underdeveloped. Existing research often lacks cohesion, frequently focusing on isolated case studies rather than providing a systematic exploration of how AR and VR can be seamlessly embedded into curricula. A systematic literature review can address this gap by synthesizing findings, identifying recurring themes and challenges, and laying the groundwork for robust pedagogical frameworks. This study conducts a systematic review of research published between 2019 and 2024 to investigate the role of AR and VR in English language education. It addresses key research questions and offers evidence-based insights that can guide educators in leveraging these technologies to optimize English language instruction. The current systematic review focuses on answering the following four research questions:

1. What are AR and VR's reported benefits and challenges in English language education?
2. How do AR and VR applications impact learners’ engagement and language acquisition compared to traditional instructional methods?
3. What factors influence the successful implementation of AR and VR technologies in various educational contexts?
4. How do learners' perceptions of AR and VR influence their language learning experiences?

Methodology

This study conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature examining the application of AR and VR in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education, covering publications from January 2019 to December 2024. A systematic review is a research method that synthesizes existing evidence by systematically identifying, appraising, and analyzing all relevant studies on a specific topic, following a predefined protocol to minimize bias and ensure reproducibility. Unlike primary research that generates original data, this study re-evaluated and integrated findings from previously published works to uncover patterns, gaps, and new perspectives. The review aimed to synthesize AR and VR applications in EFL education comprehensively. It offered fresh insights into their efficacy and contributed to a more nuanced understanding of their role in language pedagogy.

To achieve this, researchers systematically searched seven major academic databases (Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis Online, Sage Journals, and Google Scholar) for relevant articles published within the specified timeframe. The search process employed a combination of keywords (e.g., "Augmented Reality," "Virtual Reality," "EFL education," "English language learning") and Boolean operators to ensure comprehensive coverage. Initial screening identified 91 articles meeting the inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed studies focused on AR/VR in EFL teaching or learning, written in English, and published between 2019 and 2024. Following a detailed full-text review, 48 articles were selected for in-depth analysis based on their relevance, methodological rigor, and contribution to the research question.

The methodology adhered to Sandelowski and Barroso’s (2007) seven-phase framework for qualitative systematic reviews, which includes: (1) formulating the review question, (2) defining inclusion/exclusion criteria, (3) systematically searching the literature, (4) appraising study quality, (5) extracting data, (6) analyzing and synthesizing findings, and (7) presenting results. This structured approach ensured a rigorous and transparent process. To maintain reliability in article selection and data coding, inter-coder agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistic, a widely recognized measure of consistency between two or more raters. Inter-rater reliability in the study-selection phase was evaluated by randomly selecting 50 % of retrieved titles and abstracts for independent screening by a second researcher; this yielded a Cohen’s κ of 0.81, reflecting excellent agreement beyond chance. In the subsequent qualitative coding phase, 20 % of text segments extracted in MAXQDA 24 were randomly sampled and independently double-coded, producing a Cohen’s κ of 0.83 and confirming a high level of consistency in theme identification. Discrepancies between coders were resolved through discussion and consensus, enhancing the study's academic rigor. This meticulous methodology underpinned the validity and trustworthiness of the findings regarding AR and VR's impact on English language learning and teaching.

Figure 1. Sandelowski and Barroso’s Seven-Phase Framework for Qualitative Synthesis (2007, p. 105)

Step 1: Formulating Research Questions

This study investigated the use of AR and VR in English language instruction to promote cutting-edge second-language learning strategies. Specifically, it had three main goals:
1) to identify and evaluate AR/VR-based ELT approaches supported by strong empirical evidence, 2) to provide evidence-based recommendations for integrating AR/VR in language classrooms, and 3) to address gaps in the existing literature by highlighting effective AR/VR strategies. The study examined the current landscape of AR/VR in English language learning and teaching and offered recommendations for optimal implementation.

Steps 2 and 3: A Systematic Review of Existing Research and Selection of the Articles

A systematic review of AR/VR integration literature in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education followed a structured, multi‐stage protocol (Figure 2). First, seven major scholarly databases—Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis Online, Sage Journals, and Google Scholar—were searched using the terms “AR/VR in English Language Teaching (ELT)” and “AR/VR and English as a Foreign Language (EFL).” To ensure methodological rigor and interdisciplinary relevance, journals were eligible only if indexed in Scopus or Web of Science and carried an official impact factor. Moreover, priority was given to outlets specializing in educational technology (e.g., Computer Assisted Language Learning, Interactive Learning Environments, Computers & Education) and in applied linguistics or language‐teaching methodology (e.g., TESOL Quarterly, English for Specific Purposes, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching). In the first screening phase (title and abstract), the initial search yielded 91 records. Forty‐three were excluded for one or more of the following reasons: no substantive focus on AR/VR in EFL settings (n = 26), duplicate publications (n = 2), non‐English language outlets (n = 5), inaccessible full texts (n = 8), or publication in non‐peer-reviewed or non-indexed journals (n = 2). The remaining 48 articles satisfied all inclusion criteria—peer-reviewed status, thematic relevance, English language, and full availability—and progressed to full‐text review. During the third phase, both researchers independently assessed the 48 retained studies against a set of predetermined quality criteria (Table 1). Inter-coder reliability was confirmed with a Cohen’s kappa of 0.81, indicating substantial agreement. All studies that met these standards were advanced to the final synthesis, resulting in a core corpus of 48 empirical investigations of AR/VR integration in EFL contexts. This rigorous, transparent process ensured the subsequent literature review was grounded in high-quality, thematically aligned research.

Figure 2. Flowchart Visualizing Article Inclusion in Systematic Literature Review

Table 1. Eligibility Criteria for Article Selection in the Screening Process

Step 4: Extraction of Article Information

A comprehensive data extraction table (Table 2) was developed to summarize the key characteristics of the included studies. This table (see Appendix A) includes the authors, publication year, journal name, study location, research objectives, methodologies, and significant findings. Each article was meticulously reviewed, with relevant data systematically extracted and organized in a clear and user-friendly manner to facilitate the forthcoming data analysis and coding process.

Figure 3. Line Chart Depicting Annual Count of Indexed Articles

A comparative analysis of the selected articles from 2019 to 2024 showed a significant rise in research on the use of AR and VR in English language teaching and learning, especially from 2021 onwards (Figure 3). This growth is driven by AR/VR technology advancements, increasing demand for innovative teaching methods, and the recognition of immersive environments as practical tools for language learning. Notably, Taiwan has emerged as a leader in this field, supported by its focus on technological innovation and educational reform. China also plays a crucial role in expanding research on AR/VR in language education, reflecting broader regional trends (Figure 4). The increasing global interest and East Asia's prominent role in educational technology innovation are highlighted by a steady rise in publications and the geographic spread of research. The upward trajectory of publication frequency in this field, as depicted in Figure 3, illustrates a consistent increase in publications over the past few years. Meanwhile, Figure 4 presents an analysis of the geographic distribution of scholarly efforts in AR/VR-integrated EFL education, mapped according to the origin of empirical data and research samples. By identifying key regional hubs and methodological trends, the visualization underscores the global academic engagement with immersive technologies in language learning contexts.

Figure 4. Bar Chart Depicting the Geographic Distribution of Research
(Derived from Collected Data and Study Sample Locations)

Step 5: Analysis and Synthesis of Findings

A qualitative content analysis was conducted on the data synthesized in Table 2
(see Appendix A). Using MAXQDA 24 software, relevant codes were extracted from the discussion and findings sections of the selected studies. This process resulted in a hierarchical coding scheme: 64 initial open codes were aggregated into 12 axial codes and further synthesized into six overarching selective codes. To ensure inter-coder reliability, a second coder (Second Author) independently coded a randomly selected subset of the data. Cohen's kappa was used to assess the agreement between the two coders, yielding a score of 0.83, indicating substantial agreement. This rigorous process minimized subjective bias and ensured the reliability of the identified themes. The complete coding framework, including definitions and illustrative examples, is presented in Table 3 (see Appendix B), providing transparency and enhancing the robustness of the study's findings.

Step 6: Quality Control

The current systematic review ensured high quality by focusing on transparency, thorough article selection, and detailed analysis. The comprehensive literature review covered AR and VR in English language learning and teaching. Scholarly works from various periods were compared and validated, confirming the research's reliability. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to assess reliability and validity, with two expert faculty members confirming the findings. Their unanimous agreement in identifying critical concepts, axes, central themes, and the kappa coefficient of 0.83, which is significantly high at p ≤ 0.05, supports the study's high reliability and validity.

Step 7: Presentation of Findings

The seventh and final phase summarized the findings from earlier stages, offering practical insights for educators, researchers, and practitioners in language teaching and technology use. It analyzed research on integrating AR and VR into language learning and teaching, focusing on methodologies, key variables, and challenges. The phrase highlighted potential obstacles in using AR/VR for English language learning and teaching. It also presented the insights visually within a theoretical framework, as shown in Figure 5, enhancing the understanding of the research findings.

Figure 5. Theoretical Framework Derived from Empirical Findings

Table 3 (see Appendix B) summarizes the coding results from an analysis of 48 studies on AR and VR in English language learning and teaching. The findings reveal six central themes and twelve subthemes, highlighting the impact of AR/VR on educational practices. These themes include 1) Impacts of using AR/VR on learners’ engagement, 2) benefits and pedagogical strategies for AR/VR integration, 3) successful implementation in language education, 4) learners’ perceptions, 5) challenges in AR/VR usage, and 6) positive influences on language learning. Most international studies from Taiwan and China indicated growing interest in AR/VR technologies in these regions.

Reviewed studies demonstrated AR/VR's positive impact on language education, mainly through enhanced engagement and immersive learning. While pedagogical benefits and strategies were prominent themes, implementation challenges received less attention, suggesting a potential research gap. However, the limited scope of this review precludes definitive conclusions. Variations in findings, likely due to differing samples, methodologies, and contexts, necessitate further investigation. Future research should provide a balanced analysis of AR/VR's potential and limitations, emphasizing strategies to overcome adoption barriers.

Figure 6. Radar Chart Illustrating Thematic Evaluation

Discussion

The integration of Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) into English language education has garnered attention. However, a comprehensive understanding derived from the systematic review of existing studies is still needed. This understanding will lead to the development of a unified framework for evaluating the effectiveness of AR/VR in language learning, thereby simplifying its use in educational settings. This article aims to address this need by reviewing 48 peer-reviewed articles on AR/VR in English language learning and teaching published between 2019 and 2024, highlighting the benefits, such as increased learners’ engagement, and the challenges, such as technological accessibility, high costs, and the need for solid pedagogical frameworks. Overcoming these challenges is crucial for successfully using AR/VR in language education.

Research shows that new technologies can boost student motivation early in learning, but maintaining this requires engaging materials, teaching methods, and educators. Interactive textbooks, thoughtful design, and digital tools like simulations and educational games stimulate curiosity (Chen et al., 2020). Sustaining motivation requires technology and pedagogical strategies such as project-based learning, flipped classrooms, and personalized pathways, which foster active participation and autonomy. The quality of content, tailored to students' needs and guided by educators, is also crucial for maintaining engagement (Demirdag et al., 2024; Li et al., 2023). Educators play a crucial role in fostering student motivation and curiosity by creating engaging learning environments. Innovative tools like VR, AI-driven adaptive platforms, and data analytics can personalize learning, track progress, and provide immediate feedback. These technologies enhance motivation by promoting critical thinking and problem-solving. While new technologies can spark initial engagement, their long-term impact on motivation depends on their thoughtful integration with effective instructional strategies. Educators who combine these tools with robust teaching methods can sustain student motivation and curiosity (Khan et al., 2023; Lin & Wang, 2022; Zhang et al., 2023).

The findings highlight the potential of VR in English language learning and teaching, offering significant theoretical, pedagogical, and practical insights. It encourages educators to integrate VR into speaking lessons, enhancing interaction, engagement, and student motivation while urging higher education institutions to explore mobile and VR technologies for professional development (Hoang et al., 2022). This aligns with Tai et al. (2020), who found that VR outperformed video content in enhancing vocabulary acquisition by creating an immersive, interactive environment. Yudintseva (2024) emphasized VR's role in increasing communication willingness and fostering social, collaborative learning through immersive tasks. Derakhshan et al. (2024) highlighted the potential of educational technology, especially VR, to enhance language learning, particularly in developing productive English skills for real-life communication. VR's realistic 3D elements were shown to be effective in academic and medical contexts, with customizable scenes supporting specific language needs. Multi-touch mobile VR also aids practical skill development.
Hoang et al. (2022) emphasized VR's role in improving oral proficiency and vocabulary and reducing communication anxiety. They viewed language development as an emergent process shaped by environmental opportunities, with VR offering dynamic learning experiences. VR users exhibited enhanced creative thinking and language skills. Mubarak
et al. (2023) found that VR-based collaborative methods improved English presentation skills, but the limited scope calls for broader research on VR's impact in diverse settings. Integrating high-immersion VR with collaborative argument mapping can enhance learning outcomes, particularly in cultural contexts. The VR-assisted Project Learning approach improved engineering students' specialized English vocabulary and fostered a positive attitude toward language acquisition (Chen et al., 2021). VR's visualization capabilities aid vocabulary recognition, recall, and contextual understanding, enhancing language learning through multiple modalities. VR promotes authentic language learning by creating interactive environments that boost engagement and speaking opportunities (Lee et al., 2024). However, VR's effectiveness may vary, benefiting learners with solid foundational knowledge more than those with limited prior understanding (Li et al., 2023). VR is more effective than traditional methods, especially for elementary students (Chang et al., 2023).

VR-assisted English instruction enhances motivation and learning effectiveness through immersive experiences that deepen language comprehension. However, a 2024 study by
Shi et al. found that VR alone does not improve oral language skills compared to traditional methods. Educators significantly enhance oral English skills and engagement when combining VR with project-based learning. This integrated approach fosters active learning and critical thinking, leading to motivated students and potential language education transformation. Wang (2024) found that AR improved oral presentations in content, vocabulary, and pronunciation while boosting interest. AR, though beneficial, needs further development to address fluency and grammar issues. AR was more effective than digital flashcards for vocabulary learning, showing superior retention after 15 minutes and one week, though it has a higher forgetting rate. AR technology also boosts preschool English learning by improving academic performance, engagement, and motivation (Demirdag et al., 2024). It enhances language skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing while fostering curiosity and enthusiasm. Wang (2024) noted AR's positive impact on vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling, with improved reading comprehension and phonics. AR promotes self-directed learning by reducing cognitive load and anxiety, but poorly designed applications can diminish interest. Ultimately, successful AR learning requires sustained engagement and commitment.

Topu et al. (2023) found that students using AR materials excelled in learning English vocabulary, displaying more positive attitudes and enjoyment than those of a control group. However, more research is needed on children's perceptions of AR in language learning, especially among preschoolers. Lin and Wang (2022) explored motivational factors in AR teaching and found positive correlations between attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction, emphasizing the importance of aligning AR goals with students' needs. They also noted that prior success had little impact on relevance or satisfaction. To foster confidence, teachers should promote positive expectations and provide regular feedback. Participation in AR improved students' creative idea generation but had little effect on evaluating ideas, which may improve with more time. Students felt overwhelmed by time and workload, suggesting the need to assess project demands carefully. Khan et al. (2023) studied AR in vocabulary learning, finding that AR participants performed better in post-tests, though follow-up assessments showed no significant differences. AR's success was linked to improved comprehension, enjoyment, and social interaction, though some students faced technological issues. The study emphasized the need for further research into AR's potential in education. AR offers an immersive learning experience by allowing interaction with real-world objects, enhancing understanding, and stimulating multiple senses. It strengthens connections between abstract concepts and physical objects, improving vocabulary and long-term memory retention (Wang, 2024).

The current systematic review highlights VR's potential to improve communication, influenced by factors like representation accuracy, sound quality, spatial skills, and sensitivity to motion sickness, which affect cognitive load, enjoyment, and confidence, thus impacting communication willingness (Yudintseva, 2024). VR learning experiences must account for technological, personal, and emotional factors. Active learning strategies, such as peer tutoring and experiential learning, enhance student performance and engagement
(Chen et al., 2021). However, challenges like dizziness, eye strain, and device issues hinder language learning, especially with mobile VR, and regions like Asia face additional obstacles due to device and connectivity shortages (Hoang et al., 2022). To ensure equity, future research must address socioeconomic and technological disparities. While immersive VR is widely studied, desktop VR, more affordable and accessible, is gaining popularity for English language learning, though research on its impact remains limited (Luan et al., 2024). Augmented Reality (AR) also shows promise but requires careful design to avoid distractions, ensuring it enhances rather than hinders learning.

Conclusion and Implications

This study reviewed 48 studies on using AR/VR in English language learning and teaching (2019-2024). The analysis found that AR/VR enhances language acquisition and 21st-century skills like teamwork, autonomy, and cultural awareness. However, successful implementation depends on aligning AR/VR tools with appropriate pedagogy and learning theories. AR/VR methods outperformed traditional techniques in vocabulary, oral skills, motivation, and listening comprehension but sometimes had less impact on student engagement. Prolonged exposure only sometimes yielded better results. The study highlights AR/VR's benefits and underlines the urgent need for further research to address areas for improvement.

With an emphasis on their beneficial effects on academic achievement, the current systematic review looked at how AR and VR may improve English language instruction and learning. Key factors influencing their effectiveness include educational stage, teaching strategies, targeted skills, assessment types, and intervention duration. The study emphasized how spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR) and peer evaluation may enhance critical thinking, motivation, and speaking abilities. It also underscored the crucial need for further research to align VR with pedagogical principles, particularly in writing, reading, cultural awareness, and critical thinking. Challenges in fostering collaboration in virtual environments were acknowledged, and the development of AR/VR tools for older adults, those with disabilities, and students with special needs was encouraged. Policymakers should consider cost-effective AR/VR tools for enhanced learning. The study's findings support using AR/VR in language teaching, with AR/VR providing immersive environments that improve vocabulary, integrated skills, and phonetics while promoting learner autonomy. For best results, teachers should model AR/VR usage. Future research should also focus on creating high-quality AR/VR materials and integrating them into all areas of English learning, with a need for more robust theoretical frameworks to support findings.

This systematic review of selected studies on the application of AR and VR in English language learning and teaching has identified several critical gaps in the existing literature. The findings underscore an urgent need for further research into the specific impacts of AR and VR on key dimensions of language education, including contextual learning, cognitive skill development, and learner satisfaction. Moreover, a standardized framework for integrating AR and VR into instructional practices remains a significant barrier to widespread adoption. Current challenges—technological limitations, inconsistent implementation, and a lack of evidence-based guidelines—highlight the academic community's need to prioritize targeted research efforts and establish consensus-driven best practices. However, a key limitation of this review is the relatively small sample of articles analyzed, which may constrain the generalizability of these findings and suggest caution in interpreting the breadth of the identified gaps. To address these issues, future studies should focus on expanding the evidence base and developing structured pedagogical frameworks to guide the creation of practical AR/VR educational resources, ensuring their potential is fully realized in language learning contexts.

This study reviewed the use of AR and VR in English language learning and teaching, acknowledging several limitations. These include a bias toward English-language studies, which may exclude valuable perspectives from non-English research, and a modest sample size of 48 articles that may not represent the full spectrum of the field. The review also focused on studies published between 2019 and 2024, potentially overlooking earlier foundational research. Despite these constraints, the review provides essential insights into integrating AR and VR in language education. It emphasizes the need for future research to address these limitations. It underscores the potential impact of broader studies on the field, making your audience feel the importance of their work.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere gratitude to all who supported this research.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors deny any potential conflicts of interest related to the research, writing, and/or publishing of this work.

Funding

The writers did not receive funding to conduct this study, write, or publish it.

Appendix A