Research Article

Immersive language learning: Students’ perceptions of a virtual reality-embedded station rotation model for Chinese as a foreign language

Xiaochen Zhang 1 2 , Sirirat Petsangsri 1 * , Jirarat Sitthiworachart 1 , Jon-Chao Hong 3
More Detail
1 School of Industrial Education and Technology, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, THAILAND2 School of International and Education, Jiaxing Nanyang Polytechnic Institute, Jiaxing, CHINA3 Department of Industrial Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan, CHINA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(3), July 2026, ep678, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/19082
Published: 06 August 2026
OPEN ACCESS   197 Views   112 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Virtual reality (VR) has become an increasingly valuable tool for learning because it can transform abstract ideas into concrete, meaningful concepts. However, students’ perceptions of this emerging approach are crucial for developing an effective VR-based teaching model. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of intermediate-level Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) students toward a VR-embedded station rotation learning model. A qualitative case study design was employed, using focus group interviews and open-ended questionnaires with 30 intermediate-level CFL students from a college in China who participated in the VR-embedded station rotation model for one semester. Data were collected at mid-semester and at the end of the semester. The findings revealed seven themes: five positive—VR technology, vividness, practice, personalization, and receiving help—and two negative—challenging tasks and technology use. Students appreciated the immersive VR experiences, interactive activities, and personalized feedback, but also encountered difficulties with task complexity and technical issues.
Keywords: VR-embedded station rotation learning model, case study, Chinese as a foreign language, student perceptions

CITATION (APA)

Zhang, X., Petsangsri, S., Sitthiworachart, J., & Hong, J.-C. (2026). Immersive language learning: Students’ perceptions of a virtual reality-embedded station rotation model for Chinese as a foreign language. Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(3), ep678. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/19082

REFERENCES

  1. Andrew, L., Ewens, B., & Maslin-Prothero, S. (2020). Enhancing the online learning experience using virtual interactive classrooms. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.37464/2015.324.1583
  2. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
  3. Blended Learning Toolkit. (2011). Evaluation resources. Blended Learning Toolkit. https://blended.online.ucf.edu/evaluation-resources/
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  5. Cipresso, P., Giglioli, I. A. C., Raya, M. A., & Riva, G. (2018). The past, present, and future of virtual and augmented reality research: A network and cluster analysis of literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02086
  6. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.
  7. Dhimolea, T. K., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Lin, L. (2022). A systematic review of research on high-immersion virtual reality for language learning. TechTrends, 66, 810-824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00717-w
  8. Gong, Y., Lai, C., & Gao, X. (2020). The teaching and learning of Chinese as a second or foreign language: The current situation and future directions. Frontiers of Education in China, 15, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11516-020-0001-0
  9. Gong, Y., Lyu, B., & Gao, X. (2018). Research on teaching Chinese as a second or foreign language in and outside mainland China: A bibliometric analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(4), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0385-2
  10. Gu, X., Zhu, Y., & Guo, X. (2013). Meeting the “digital natives”: Understanding the acceptance of technology in classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 392-402.
  11. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
  12. Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. Jossey-Bass.
  13. Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63(5), 564-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
  14. Huang, H.-M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S.-S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1171-1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.014
  15. Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., & Plimmer, B. (2017). A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 85-119.
  16. Kazu, İ. Y., & Kuvvetli, M. (2023). A triangulation method on the effectiveness of digital game-based language learning for vocabulary acquisition. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 13541-13567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11756-y
  17. Keller, J. M. (2009). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3
  18. Kirkley, S. E., & Kirkley, J. R. (2005). Creating next generation blended learning environments using mixed reality, video games and simulations. TechTrends, 49(3), 42-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763646
  19. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
  20. Lin, C.-P., Wong, L.-H., & Shao, Y.-J. (2012). Comparison of 1:1 and 1:m CSCL environment for collaborative concept mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00421.x
  21. Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 937-958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2
  22. Mondly. (2024). Mondly VR: Language learning immersion. Mondly. https://www.mondly.com/vr
  23. Mossberger, K., Kaplan, D., & Gilbert, M. A. (2008). Going online without easy access: A tale of three cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 30(5), 469-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2008.00414.x
  24. Parmaxi, A. (2023). Virtual reality in language learning: A systematic review and implications for research and practice. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 172-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1765392
  25. Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785-797. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000241
  26. Peterson, M. (2016). Virtual worlds and language learning: From theory to practice. Peter Lang.
  27. Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, Article 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778
  28. Remler, D. K., & Ryzin, G. G. V. (2021). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation. SAGE.
  29. Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535180.pdf
  30. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
  31. Truitt, A. A., & Ku, H.-Y. (2018). A case study of third grade students’ perceptions of the station rotation blended learning model in the United States. Educational Media International, 55(2), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1484042
  32. Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, V., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: An empirical study. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(3), 227-244. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881011058669
  33. Walkington, C. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 932. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031882
  34. Zheng, L., Long, M., Zhong, L., & Gyasi, J. F. (2022). The effectiveness of technology-facilitated personalized learning on learning achievements and learning perceptions: A meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11807-11830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11092-7