An exploration of low- and high-immersive virtual reality modalities for willingness to communicate in English as a second language
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed-method quasi-experimental study compares the impact of two different kinds of virtual reality environments on the willingness of English as a Second Language (ESL) students to engage in communication. Twenty high-level ESL graduate students were recruited for the research and organized into 10 pairs. Each pair of students completed two separate speaking tasks. One task took place in a low-immersive virtual reality environment, while the other task took place in a high-immersive virtual reality environment. The study was counterbalanced, with half completing the two tasks in one order, while the other half completed them in the reverse order. The study found no statistically significant differences between the modality conditions on willingness to communicate. Task order and action-oriented instructional methods were found to have greater impact than the modality. However, a significant difference was found between participants' affective-cognitive experiences, with participants reporting higher cognitive load and greater enjoyment in high-immersive condition. Speaking anxiety was also reduced after participation in two virtual reality tasks, leading to an increase in self-confidence. Additionally, qualitative analysis identified relationships between various technological, affective-cognitive, and individual factors that can affect the student's willingness to communicate. Empirical and theoretical implications are discussed, along with limitations and directions for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it