https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2487-9868
Figures
Abstract
This study aims to compare the retelling performance of two groups that engaged in reading activities with virtual reality and augmented reality texts. Furthermore, the results of the interventions using these technologies were compared with the results of the printed text reading activity. The study participants comprised 100 students aged 12–13 years studying in a secondary school. The researchers evaluated the students’ story-retelling performance through a rubric in the study. In the pre-test stage, the students performed a paper-based reading activity on the texts in the coursebook and their retelling performance was evaluated. In the post-test stage, the reading activities of the two groups were carried out with the intervention of virtual reality and augmented reality. While the pre-test results showed no significant difference between the groups, the post-test results indicated that the augmented reality intervention better supported the students’ retelling performance than virtual reality. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the sub-categories of setting and characters. Additionally, the virtual reality intervention did not create a significant difference in the sub-categories of characters, event/plot, problem, solution, and total score compared to the printed text reading activity. However, it produced better results in the setting sub-category than the printed text. A positive difference was observed in all sub-categories when the augmented reality intervention was compared to the printed text reading activity. AR showed greater benefits for retelling performance in this study, but further research is needed on long-term retention.
Citation: Şimşek B, Koparan B (2025) The effects of virtual reality and augmented reality technologies on students’ story retelling performance. PLoS One 20(5): e0323445. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323445
Editor: Ramandeep Kaur, Father Muller Charitable Institutions, INDIA
Received: February 28, 2025; Accepted: April 9, 2025; Published: May 15, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Şimşek, Koparan. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: "The Effects of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality Technologies on Students' Story Retelling Performance" files are available from the openicpsr database (accession number(s) https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/225281/version/V1/view).
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Reading encompasses the processes of understanding, interpreting, and analyzing written texts by individuals [1]. This process aims to improve students’ language skills, reading comprehension abilities, and thinking capacities [2,3]. The ultimate goal of reading, which is the ability to comprehend, is defined by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [4] as an essential skill for both students’ academic achievement and lifelong learning. While reading comprehension levels are typically measured through various test formats, evaluating individuals’ retelling performance can also be used as an alternative [5–12]. Retelling requires individuals to interpret and convey what they have read in their own words, reflecting the content of the text [13].
A review of the relevant literature reveals numerous studies examining the effects of retelling on students’ cognitive, affective, and social development [7,14–19]. These studies have found that retelling not only enhances students’ reading comprehension skills but also fosters the development of their creative thinking, critical thinking, and social skills [16,20–25]. Moreover, it has been determined that retelling contributes to students’ language development and supports their communication skills [26].
Technological advancements in recent years have introduced changes to reading materials, adding new dimensions to retelling. Alongside traditional printed texts, new text formats, such as digital texts [27–30], multimedia texts [31,32], and interactive texts [33,34]. Furthermore, augmented reality texts that combine printed and digital elements [35–38] and texts experienced solely in virtual reality environments [39–44] have also emerged. These contemporary text formats, enabled by technological developments, have the potential to transform the nature of traditional reading [45,46]. Consequently, understanding how these new text formats affect individuals’ reading processes has become an essential area of research. While several studies have compared reading experiences between printed and digital texts [47–50], research on the increasingly prevalent augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) texts remains limited. Most of these studies focused on comprehension [36,39] and vocabulary teaching [40,41]. Very limited studies exist on the impact of AR and VR technology on retelling the story. On the other hand, comparative studies on how AR and VR-based reading activities affect students’ reading processes have not been found in the relevant literature.
VR technology, one of the technological applications discussed in this study, provides users a three-dimensional, virtual, and interactive environment [51]. As Lin [52] explains, VR creates a three-dimensional virtual world through computer simulation and allows users to observe events and objects in three-dimensional space without limitation, providing sensory stimulation of sight, hearing, and touch. VR has been highlighted in numerous studies as a method that can enhance learning effectiveness in education [53–55]. However, it has also been suggested that while VR can be used as a tool in language classrooms, it faces challenges related to its technical configuration and pedagogical foundation [56]. For instance, VR can provide immersive experiences that engage students and enhance their learning, but it also requires a significant technical setup and may not be accessible to all students. Furthermore, Kwok et al. [57] have noted that improving reading comprehension skills in VR learning environments is challenging and remains understudied. Nevertheless, VR technology offers a different reading experience with the potential to create virtual environments suitable for reading content, as seen in the study of Acar and Cavas [39]. In this study, when students put on their VR glasses, they find themselves in a spacecraft and can go to different planets. Moreover, students can read short readings of these planets while navigating the 3D environment. Thus, students have a different reading experience than the traditional reading activity. In this context, it is important to determine how the reading experience affects students’ reading processes.
Another topic examined in this study is AR technology. AR is a technological tool that provides users with a new natural environment where they encounter both virtual and real components [58,59] and offers new options to enhance the innovativeness of instructional and learning applications [60]. Although the use of this technology in educational settings is relatively new, various positive outcomes have been reported. AR technology can potentially contribute to language teaching with its interactive format [61]. In the context of reading skills, its use is particularly encouraged in story reading and narration processes [62]. It has been stated that by providing students with learning opportunities based on understanding and experience, AR can help students internalize and retell stories more effectively [63]. However, context, interaction level, and technology integration must be considered when preparing AR-based texts to enable students to retell stories more meaningfully [64]. Not paying attention to these elements may negatively affect students’ story-retelling processes. Therefore, there is a need for current studies on the preparation of AR storybooks and their effects on students’ retelling performance. Understanding the potential effects of AR-based texts on students’ retelling performance is crucial for educators and developers in the field of education and technology integration.
While VR provides students with a vivid and three-dimensional environment for story-reading experiences [65], AR enriches the physical world with digital content [66]. Both technologies have the potential to create a more interactive environment in the learning process and to attract students’ interest and attention [67–79]. However, studies need to evaluate the reflections of this potential on students’ story-retelling performance. The current study will examine the effects of VR and AR-supported texts on the story-retelling process. Additionally, the results of interventions carried out with these technologies will be compared to the results of printed text reading activities. Thus, a broader knowledge base will be provided for educators, researchers, and technology application developers regarding these texts.
Review of the literature
Virtual reality technology
According to Fassi et al. [80], VR is a computer simulation of an actual situation in which individuals can interact with a virtual environment that does not exist through non-traditional interfaces such as goggles and helmets. VR is an advanced human-computer interface that simulates a realistic environment [81]. Participants can move within the virtual world, view it from different angles, reach out, grasp, and reshape it [82]. VR allows the creation of a virtual world using computer graphics and gives users genuine feelings [40,83–85]. In short, VR simulates a virtual environment that immerses users to the extent that they feel “a sense of being there” [86].
VR technology has enabled innovation across various fields [87]. First emerging in the field of computer science in the 1960s, VR is now being widely adopted in many areas [88–91]. Recently, its use has become more prevalent in education and language learning [92–94]. Previously, physical environments and materials were used entirely in language teaching, but digital technologies have recently started to be used. As an up-to-date technology that combines physical and digital elements, AR also offers users a different experience. On the other hand, VR offers users a virtual environment by completely detaching from the physical environment. In this respect, users’ cognitive load and experience may differ from traditional and AR applications that combine traditional and digital applications. In addition, while other applications have a connection with the real world, users who use the VR application switch from the real world to the virtual environment for a while through VR glasses. This feature of VR technology distinguishes it from other technology-supported language teaching processes. Since VR technology is an up-to-date technology used in language teaching and allows the creation of environments in different contexts, it has recently attracted the attention of researchers, and it has been observed that the number of studies on this subject is increasing day by day [65,95–101].
The studies in the literature indicate that VR has great potential to enable immersive, interactive, and intuitive language learning [56,90,99,102,103]. The research shows that the use of VR in language instruction reduces users’ anxiety levels [104,105], promotes cognitive gains [106–108], and provides a natural environment for practising speaking [44,109,110], reading [111,112], listening [113], writing [114], communication skills [115], critical thinking [116], and vocabulary knowledge [117–119]. However, challenges must be addressed in optimising VR-supported language education [101]. The challenges encountered in the use of VR in language teaching include internet connectivity issues and the lack of accessibility to the necessary devices for using VR [120–122], the inability to access VR platforms due to firewalls [123], occasional usage difficulties [121,124], the potential for cognitive and perceptual overload if VR-based learning activities are not adequately designed [125–128], the occurrence of symptoms such as nausea and dizziness in some students using VR [129], and the potential increase in workload [121,124,130].
The studies on VR-based reading environments have presented both positive and negative findings. It is argued that virtual reality offers an innovative approach to education, providing students with more effective experiences of texts [39,63,131,132]. VR strengthens the interaction with texts by presenting three-dimensional representations of the characters, events, and settings, helping individuals establish a deeper connection with the text [133]. Students can better understand the details within texts through the immersive learning experience in VR environments and can create more creative narratives by adding their own interpretations and perspectives during the retelling process [134,135]. With these aspects, VR-based reading environments are believed to contribute significantly to developing students’ retelling skills by providing enriched learning experiences in both cognitive and affective domains. On the other hand, Rau et al. [136] found no significant difference between VR/AR and traditional reading in their study that measured comprehension using a test. Additionally, Baceviciute et al. [137] compared students’ performance on a text read in a VR-supported environment and concluded that while the VR group performed better in information transfer, reading in VR was more cognitively demanding and less efficient in terms of time.
While the potential of VR in language learning is promising, there is still much to be explored. The literature suggests limited knowledge about VR’s effectiveness for learning [53,94]. Furthermore, the effects of VR on language teaching has not yet been sufficiently researched [57]. Compared to other language skills, studies on using VR for reading skills appear to be more limited [138]. Given VR’s unique opportunities for learning content, further research on VR-based reading environments is desirable and necessary. This need for further exploration should pique the curiosity and interest of educators, researchers, and practitioners in language education and technology.
Augmented reality and augmented reality storybook
Augmented Reality (AR) is a technology where virtual information is overlaid onto real-world images, creating an interactive space for users to explore and facilitating learning [58] Unlike VR, AR is not designed to isolate the user from the real world [139]. While VR expects the user to experience a computer-generated virtual environment, AR expects the addition of information and images to be incorporated into a real-world environment by the system [140]. In this context, AR can be briefly explained as a technology where virtual objects are merged with the real-world environment [141,142]. The advantage of this technology is its ability to overlay virtual resources such as 3D images, animations, and videos onto the context and to support the static text encountered by the reader with a comprehensive virtual environment [143]. This allows for creating immersive experiences, providing the reader with interactive and enriched environments.
The beginnings of AR technology can be traced primarily to its use for educational purposes in aircraft engineering [144] and surgery [145]. For many years, the use of AR was limited to experimental tasks in academic laboratory settings, maintenance and repair activities [146–150]. However, today, AR is applicable in a wide range of areas. Education and language learning are among the current domains of AR application. It has been observed that AR is making various contributions to educational processes, and specific applications utilizing this technology are beginning to be introduced, particularly in language instruction [62].
When the relevant literature is examined, it is seen that AR-based environments in language teaching support learning performance [151–153], develop spatial thinking skills [154–157], increase motivation and interaction [158], improve vocabulary learning [139], make the process of learning and memorizing concepts more efficient [159], increase reading comprehension level and enrich learning environments [65]. On the other hand, some studies have revealed that while AR technology provides various benefits for language learning, it is not yet fully ready to be integrated into language classrooms [160] and that pedagogical strategies for its implementation need to be developed, and some points need to be considered in practice [161–163].
Regarding the potential of AR in education, it has paved the way for its integration into language teaching in different fields. One of the AR-supported teaching materials developed in this process is AR books. AR-based reading environments emerge as an innovative approach to education [164–166]. AR books are one of the instructional tools for the new technology that can be experienced using a computer, head-mounted display, smartphone, or tablet, and present information in different formats such as sound, digital content, 2D or 3D animation, and video [36]. Due to the educational and entertaining features of these books, they have become more widespread, especially for children, and research has shown that they provide students with the ability to understand better and interpret texts [66,167,168]. Furthermore, research on AR books in the relevant literature has shown that these books provide a more interactive space for storytelling by encouraging the use of touch in the exploration of story content [169]; they are exciting, engaging, and fun, and also facilitate the remembering of the story, expand the ability to empathize, and promote active reading [170–174].
The research on the effects of AR on reading skills has revealed that AR books provide an interactive environment that enriches individuals’ reading experiences by allowing the integration of virtual objects with the natural world [175,176]. Such environments deepen students’ interaction with the text and make the concepts of storytelling more concrete [177]. In this respect, this application has significant potential in terms of developing retelling skills [62,178], helping students better comprehend the details and meanings of the stories they tell [179], and enabling them to develop more creative and comprehensive discourse when retelling texts [106,169]. On the other hand, some studies have found that AR books do not make a difference in simple comprehension levels compared to printed books [168], and there is no difference between printed texts and AR books when students’ comprehension levels are evaluated [177]. Considering all the results, it is seen that AR-based reading environments offer significant opportunities for the development of reading comprehension and retelling skills. Therefore, this potential should be best realized through carefully designed applications, and current studies on this topic should be encouraged.
Retelling
Retelling is the process in which readers, after reading a text, convey the main ideas, characters, and events in their own words to comprehend better the information [180]. Retelling enables students to recall the details within the text and make more connections [181]. Additionally, this process aims to facilitate students’ interaction with the text and reinforce the meaning they have derived from it [26]. Therefore, it can be said that retelling not only promotes the internalization of knowledge but also develops students’ thinking skills [182]. Retelling is a practical skill that strengthens reading comprehension abilities [183,184].
Developing retelling skills can be facilitated by employing various methods and technologies. In this context, it has been observed that emphasizing essential concepts within the text using interactive applications on intelligent boards or tablets during the instructional process can contribute to developing this skill [185]. Additionally, using video and animations to engage in storytelling can make retelling more captivating for students [186]. These technological opportunities allow students to explore different perspectives and develop and enrich their retelling techniques through diverse and more interactive experiences. In this regard, various technological tools can be utilized to help students better understand the text [187–190]. Some of these applications have emerged in recent years with the rapid advancements in educational technologies, such as VR and AR. These applications have emerged as contemporary tools that can be used to develop story-reading and retelling skills.
VR and AR applications have significant potential for facilitating comprehension. These technologies can help students better understand the events and characters described in the texts by making the content more concrete [7]. During the story reading process, students can observe the settings and events of the story in two or three dimensions through AR applications [191,192]. On the other hand, VR allows students to fully immerse themselves in the narratives, triggering their imagination and enabling them to become a part of the story [65]. These interactive experiences can give students more sensory experiences during retelling, making learning more enjoyable and effective. In this context, VR and AR technologies can significantly improve students’ retelling skills by contributing to better internalising the content.
The literature on the use of VR and AR to develop retelling skills is limited, but these technologies have significant potential [62,112,178,193,194]. These technologies have been found to facilitate more active student engagement in the learning process, enhance comprehension and memory skills, strengthen social interaction, and develop creative thinking abilities [195]. Many studies have reported that when students experience VR [196–202] and AR [203–207] environments, their connection to storytelling is strengthened, and these experiences promote deeper learning. However, some studies have also highlighted the potential adverse effects of VR [208–210], and AR [161–163] technologies. For VR, these issues include distraction from the narrative under certain conditions [211], increased cognitive load [212,213], and technical problems that can distract users [214]. Additionally, the psychological effects of VR on users need to be further investigated [208], and VR should be used in a balanced manner [215]. These factors may negatively effects the retelling performance of readers after using VR. For AR, issues such as complex interactions when users have to use multiple devices [216], increased anxiety levels in students [217], usability problems [191,218], the additional workload for teachers [219], and cognitive overload [191,220] have been reported. These factors may also negatively affect students’ retelling performance.
Based on the studies conducted, it can be said that VR and AR applications have the potential to significantly improve students’ retelling performance, offering a promising future for education. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the challenges and limitations that must be considered when using these technologies. On the other hand, it can be said that the studies on using VR and AR applications to develop retelling skills are limited. In this context, the current study aims to observe the effect of VR and AR-supported texts on retelling the story during the students’ retelling process and to provide recommendations based on the results. In the study, the rubric developed by Cruz de Quiros et al. [221] will be used to evaluate the students’ story-retelling performance. Thus, the effect of the texts prepared using VR and AR on both the total scores of the retelling performance and the sub-dimensions of the rubric, which are “setting when and where, characters, event/plot, problem and solution”, will be examined. This will provide us with more in-depth information about the effect of the texts supported by these technologies on students’ retelling performance.
The current study
This study aims to compare the retelling performance of two groups that conducted reading activities with virtual reality and augmented reality texts. The study addresses the following research questions:
- RQ1: What is the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of the group participating in the printed text reading and virtual reality reading activities?
- RQ2: What is the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of the group participating in the printed text reading and augmented reality reading activities?
- RQ3: What is the difference between the retelling performance of the group that participated in the virtual reality reading activity and the group that participated in the augmented reality reading activity?
Methodology
Participants
The participants were students attending a secondary school, ages 12–13. The students were willing to participate in the study. After obtaining the necessary permissions, the research process was initiated. One hundred students who voluntarily participated in the research process and studied in four different classes were randomly divided into Group 1 (26 girls and 24 boys) and Group 2 (27 girls and 23 boys). The students in the classes were randomly assigned to groups, and after the assignment, it was seen that balanced groups were formed in terms of gender. Group 1 participated in a reading activity using virtual reality, while Group 2 participated in a reading activity using augmented reality.
The principle of applicability is the main reason for including 100 participants within the research framework. There were no VR glasses in the practice school, but the researchers provided tablets used for AR-assisted readings. For this reason, considering the research’s applicability, 100 participants were included in the study. In addition, it was determined that most of the research conducted with VR, in particular, was conducted with a small working group in the context of applicability [112,136]. Among the 100 participants, not a single one was without access to technological devices (computers, tablets, smartphones, virtual reality devices, etc.). A staggering 64% of the participants owned a tablet, 78% owned a computer, and a whopping 86% owned a smartphone. These digital natives were adept at using their devices for a variety of purposes, with 84% using them for gaming, 74% for studying, 59% for entertainment, and 57% for communication. The data unequivocally demonstrated the students’ remarkable adaptability to technology. On the other hand, it was determined that the participants did not have a VR headset. In addition, the participants had no previous experience reading AR storybooks. However, the use of AR technology through tablets and the fact that students have used this technological device before may have provided them with convenience in reading activities with this device.
Virtual reality setting and the augmented reality storybook
In this study, with teacher input, we chose the text “Little Dolphin” from the textbooks to measure the students’ retelling performance. This text covers the sub-dimensions of the rubric we used to evaluate the students’ retelling performance. Therefore, the researchers and the teachers considered it suitable for this study. Additionally, using a text selected from the textbook shows that these texts can be supported with virtual reality and augmented reality applications. For the VR-reading condition of the selected text, we developed a spatially adapted VR application using Unity3D. To provide environmental support, we also utilized the visuals from the “Little Dolphin” text in the students’ textbooks. This allowed us to place the reading text in an appropriate virtual environment as the context. The environment did not contain a character representing the students. We created a still and silent environment with the sea, a small dolphin, and a polluted beach. We only transferred the characters and locations from the text to the digital environment to ensure that the readers could only obtain information related to the text from the text itself. We positioned the reading text as an open book, spanning two pages, within the environment. During the reading, the students had no opportunity to interact with any elements in the environment, as they intended to focus solely on the text. The students read the text using the Oculus Quest 2, an independent VR headset.
To create the augmented reality storybook, we followed various steps. First, we determined which parts of the text would be supported by augmented reality. We then searched for video content to be used in these sections. We ensured that the augmented reality content integrated into the reading text would contribute to understanding the text by being consistent with the text. In this context, we prepared videos aligned with the flow of events in the text. We then recorded the audio for the video content that would replace the written sections of the text in a studio environment and integrated these audio recordings into the videos. When preparing the video content, we also considered the format that would support the students’ cognitive load and reading comprehension levels based on the study’s results by Şimşek et al. [222]. The duration of the digital content we prepared varies between 25–27 seconds. Therefore, we prepared the augmented reality content in a way that would not disrupt the integrity of the printed text and would contribute to the students’ understanding. After completing this process, we integrated the augmented reality content into the books using the ROAR application. This application ensures that the augmented reality content uploaded to the system matches the visuals in the books. Thus, the corresponding digital content is triggered by opening the ROAR application on a device such as a tablet or smartphone and bringing it over the visual in the printed book. The digital content triggered through this application only animates the visual in the text, while the written section continues to be visible on the application’s screen. In the current study, the students used the application on tablets.
Procedures
This study was evaluated by the Akdeniz University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee. The approval decision of the board numbered 879168 was sent to us in writing on 26.03.2024. In addition, application permission was obtained from the Directorate of National Education to carry out the research process in schools. In addition, a written informed consent form was requested from parents and students for participation. We obtained the necessary permissions and met with the school administrators where the implementation would take place. We then convened with the teachers, ensuring they were fully informed and involved in our study. We took the time to demonstrate to them how both virtual reality and augmented reality applications operate, fostering a sense of shared understanding and participation.
Respect for the students’ comfort was a key consideration in our study. We requested that the teachers be present in the classroom alongside the researcher during the research process, as we desired the students to feel more at ease. In the initial phase of the research, we aimed to test whether any difference existed in the retelling performance between the two groups. In this context, the students read the text “Little Dolphin” in print form and subsequently retold the text. We evaluated the students’ performances as a pre-test. We planned a five-week gap until the post-test phase, during which the teachers continued their regular instructional activities. After collecting the pre-test data, we conducted activities with one group using a virtual reality application and the other group using an augmented reality application, lasting two class periods (80 minutes for each group), with the goal of familiarizing the students with these applications. We did not utilize the text that was read in the pre-test during these activities. With the texts we determined, we enabled students to learn how to use these technological tools in VR and AR-supported reading processes. In VR, the researchers opened the reading environment, VR glasses were given to the students, and a reading experience was provided. The AR storybook reading processes explained how to use the tablets with the AR application open, and the students were asked to apply it. Similarly, in the final test phase, we opened the applications (application) and gave them to the students. This method was adopted so that the elements related to the applications did not create additional pressure on the students. Therefore, students were only expected to interact with the text. In the reading activities with different texts before the post-test, we verbally asked the students questions about the text and made practical speeches. We carried out these practices with groups of 25 people, and each group had two lesson hours (80 minutes). Additionally, we did not intervene with the groups in any other way outside of these activities. After the break, one group participated in a reading activity with the virtual reality application, while the other group participated in a reading activity with the augmented reality application. We asked the students, who read the same text through different technological applications, to retell the text. We then recorded the students’ retelling performances and proceeded to the analysis phase.
Data analysis
In the study, the researchers evaluated the students’ story-retelling performances using the rubric proposed by Cruz de Quiros et al. [221]. This rubric consists of the following indicators: Setting, when and where, characters, event/plot, problem, and solution. The possible score range for a story is 0–15. After collecting the data, we first conducted normality tests to determine the appropriate analyses to be performed. After the analysis, we examined the Skewness and Kurtosis values and determined that the data showed a normal distribution. To analyze the pre-test scores of the two groups participating in the paper-based reading activity, we used independent group t-tests. Following the post-test, we conducted paired sample t-tests for the within-group evaluations. To compare the groups, we used independent group t-tests to find the difference between the post-test scores of the group that participated in the virtual reality reading activity and the group that participated in the augmented reality reading activity. Finally, in cases where the difference was significant, we calculated the effect size. We chose to use Cohen’s d to determine the effect size, which underscored the significance of our findings.
Results
We conducted the pre-test with printed texts at the end of the reading activities. The post-test was administered after the two groups’ reading activities with virtual and augmented reality interventions. The pre-test results showed no statistically significant difference between the groups at a 95% confidence interval. However, the post-test results provided data indicating that the augmented reality intervention supported the students’ retelling performance more than the virtual reality intervention. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and analysis results for the groups’ pre-test and post-test scores.
Based on the total scores, it was determined that the virtual reality intervention, while not creating a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test (t = -1.915, p < .05), showed potential for enhancing students’ retelling scores. However, the augmented reality intervention was found to significantly improve the students’ retelling scores (t = -6.094, p < .05). According to the within-group evaluations, after the augmented reality intervention, the students’ retelling performance significantly improved in all categories, including the total score, compared to the pre-test. On the other hand, after the virtual reality intervention, the students’ performance only improved in the “setting” sub-category (t = -3.130, p < .05). There were no significant differences in the “characters” (t = -1.159, p > .05), “event/plot” (t = .531, p > .05), “problem” (t = -.704, p > 05), and “solution” (t = -.375, p > .05) sub-categories compared to the pre-test. The Independent Groups t-test results for the pre-test and post-test are presented in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.
During the pre-test phase of the study, we had the two groups read printed texts to evaluate their story-retelling performance. After reading the text, the students retold the story, and we conducted the pre-test evaluation. The results show that in the absence of any intervention, there was no significant difference between the two groups’ retelling performance (t = -.700, p > .05). This finding applies to the total score and all sub-categories. It’s important to note that before the virtual reality and augmented reality interventions were implemented, the two groups had remarkably similar story-retelling abilities, as evidenced by the non-significant difference in their pre-test scores, reinforcing the robustness of our findings.
The post-test results of the study show that the students who participated in the augmented reality-supported reading activity had significantly higher story-retelling performance compared to the students who participated in the virtual reality-supported reading activity (t = -3.207, p < .05). This is also the case for the “event/plot” (t = -3.785, p < .05), “problem” (t = -3.119, p < .05), and “solution” (t = -3.735, p < .05) sub-categories. There is a statistically significant difference in favour of the augmented reality intervention in these sub-categories compared to the virtual reality intervention. However, for the “setting” (t = -2.144, p < .05) and “characters” sub-categories, there is no significant difference between the two groups. Additionally, we calculated the effect size for the categories where we found a significant difference. The Cohen’s d effect size is.641 for the total score,.757 for the event/plot,.624 for the problem, and.747 for a solution. These results indicate that the augmented reality intervention supported the students’ story-retelling performance more effectively, particularly in event/plot, problem, and solution, than the virtual reality intervention. While the “p” value tells us that there is a statistically significant difference between the groups, the effect size shows us how important this difference is from a practical point of view. When the effect sizes calculated in the present study are evaluated, it is seen that there is a moderate effect size in all of the titles. When these results and the results of the in-group assessment are evaluated together, it can be said that AR is a more appropriate tool to increase students’ retelling performance than VR. These results apply to the current research design.
Based on the information provided above, the research questions can be answered as follows:
- RQ1: The results of the reading activity conducted through virtual reality, while not showing a significant difference in the students’ retelling performance compared to those conducted with printed texts, do suggest a potential for positive effect. The virtual reality intervention positively affected the students’ performance in the setting sub-category, hinting at its future potential in education.
- RQ2: The reading activity conducted through augmented reality, as evidenced by our research, better supports the students’ retelling performance than the reading activity conducted with printed texts. This finding, validated across the setting, characters, event/plot, problem, and solution sub-categories, instils confidence in the robustness of our research.
- RQ3: The reading activity conducted through augmented reality better supports the students’ retelling performance compared to the reading activity conducted through virtual reality. This applies to the event/plot, problem, and solution sub-categories. There is no difference between the groups in the setting and characters sub-categories.
Discussion
Our study takes a unique approach, focusing on the effects of VR and AR applications on students’ story-retelling performance. We designed texts suitable for both environments, allowing students to read from their textbooks using VR and AR applications. In the pre-test, students read the texts with printed materials, and in the final test, the two groups read the texts with the two technological tools. We evaluated the students’ retelling performance in depth, considering their total scores and their scores on the sub-categories of setting, characters, event/plot, problem, and solution rather than as a single dimension.
Results related to the first question of the research showed that virtual reality intervention did not significantly affect students’ story-retelling performance compared to printed texts. Additionally, the virtual reality intervention did not create a significant difference in the categories of characters, events/plots, problems, and solutions. While there are a limited number of studies on this subject in the literature, the results do not fully support each other. The results generally indicate that the VR intervention did not produce successful results in the context of reading comprehension. In this context, Flores-Gallegos et al. [223] concluded in their study that VR environments did not significantly affect reading performance. Similarly, in the study by Çoban et al.[209], printed texts were found to be more beneficial than virtual reality in terms of both reading comprehension and retelling performance. In the study, information-based questions about the concrete responses in the story were generally used to measure the participants’ retelling performance. However, in the study by Çoban et al. [209], the VR content was modelled and used only as a book and an appropriate virtual environment for the context of the text was not created. This may explain why the VR intervention in our study supported the students’ retelling performance related to the setting. Indeed, we found that the students who participated in our study provided more detailed information about the setting after the VR intervention. In the study by Baceviciute et al. [137], a virtual environment appropriate to the context was created, and it was revealed that virtual reality could successfully support information transfer. In this framework, the study by Kaplan-Rakowski and Gruber [112] also showed that VR could support reading comprehension. In the study, two groups reading subtitles with VR and video experiences were compared, and the results showed that the VR group had statistically significantly higher reading comprehension scores than the video group. These results may differ from those of other studies due to using videos instead of printed texts. However, it was determined that the VR intervention increased motivation, and there was no difference between the groups regarding cognitive load [112]. Therefore, these factors may also have supported the comprehension process. We think it is still too early to answer clearly how VR intervention affects reading comprehension or retelling performance. Indeed, the studies mentioned in this section were generally conducted with university students. In this respect, conducting the current study with middle school students is also very important for understanding the effects of virtual reality on different groups.
Another topic addressed in the study is the effect of augmented reality intervention on retelling performance. The results prove that the reading activity performed with augmented reality better supports students’ retelling performance than reading activities with printed texts. This result is also valid for setting, characters, event/plot, problem, and solution categories. Many studies in the literature have shown that augmented reality applications support learning performance [152,224], positively affect academic achievement [225,226], are engaging [227,228], increase students’ motivation for learning [157,229], and provide users with a pleasant learning environment [230]. Therefore, the characteristics of augmented reality-supported texts may have contributed to understanding the text and the retelling processes. Indeed, there is ample evidence that augmented reality storybooks increase users’ comprehension performance [44,66,167,168]. Additionally, studies have been conducted on students’ story-retelling performance. These studies determined that the augmented reality intervention increased students’ story-retelling performance [36,62,178]. However, considering the sub-dimensions of retelling, it can be said that our study results are different. Indeed, Danaei et al. [36] revealed that the augmented reality intervention may not make a difference in describing the story’s theme, characters, and setting. On the other hand, Liu et al. [178], similar to the results of the current study, determined that students could perform better in describing the story’s setting after the augmented reality intervention. This difference may be due to the diversity of the augmented reality content. Indeed, more subjective opinions may be at the forefront when preparing augmented reality storybooks with unclear design principles. This leads to the use of multimedia content without a standard. Therefore, differences may arise in the results of studies with a similar research framework. However, when the mentioned studies are examined, it has been determined that after the augmented reality intervention, students performed better in describing the overall story and the sequence of events [36,62]. These results support the current study. In conclusion, it can be said that the augmented reality intervention supports students’ retelling performance.
The current study’s findings indicate that the read-aloud activity implemented with AR was more supportive of students’ retelling performance than the read-aloud activity implemented with VR. This was the case for the event/plot, problem, and solution categories. However, there were no differences between the groups in the setting and characters sub-categories. This may be attributed to the fact that the character and the setting were represented in the virtual reality environment. Therefore, it can be argued that creating a context-based background supports students’ retelling performance while reading the text. The results show that the AR intervention is more effective and that this effect is a moderate effect size. Considering the in-group evaluations, using AR storybooks in classroom activities can encourage an increase in students’ performance in retelling the story based on the determined impact sizes. It is known that AR integration into textbooks currently used in schools is easier than VR. In addition, AR applications can be used with more widely used technological tools such as smartphones and tablets. For this reason, the use of AR applications in classroom reading activities can be adopted based on the effect sizes determined regarding the retelling performances of the students and the ease of use.
When the results are evaluated overall, the augmented reality intervention stands out. One of the possible reasons for this may be that adding multimedia content such as sound, video, and interaction to the text enriches the learning experience [231,232]. The presence of stimuli such as sound and video in the augmented reality storybook, which are absent in the virtual reality environment, maybe a reason for this difference. Indeed, receiving information through different channels, such as auditory and visual, compared to processing it through a single channel, contributes to more efficient learning and retention [27]. Thus, the multimedia content may have reduced the cognitive load and increased the comprehensibility of the story [29]. Moreover, there is evidence that virtual reality can increase the cognitive load in the context of reading [137], while augmented reality can reduce it [222], which may be another reason for the difference between the two groups. Additionally, most studies on augmented reality in the context of reading skills have reported positive results regarding story retelling [36,62,178]. In contrast, virtual reality studies have found some negative results [209,223]. The less frequent use of virtual reality, students’ unfamiliarity with reading in a virtual environment, and the requirement to use a head-mounted display may present an unusual reading experience for students [209]. On the other hand, the use of printed texts in augmented reality reading experiences may make students feel more comfortable.
Conclusion
This study explored the effect of reading activities conducted with VR and AR applications on students’ retelling performance. To this end, we formed two groups and first conducted a reading activity with printed texts to evaluate the students’ retelling performance. Subsequently, the groups engaged in reading activities with VR and AR interventions, and their post-test scores were determined. The results showed that the VR intervention did not significantly differ from the printed texts. However, the AR intervention proved to be a practical and effective tool, particularly in the setting sub-category, demonstrating its usability in the context of traditional texts. The reading activity conducted with augmented reality significantly better supported the students’ retelling performance compared to the reading activity with printed texts. This finding was valid for the setting, characters, event/plot, problem, and solution sub-categories. When we looked at the difference between the groups, we determined that the reading activity with augmented reality better supported the students’ retelling performance than the reading activity with virtual reality. This was also true for the event/plot, problem, and solution sub-categories. There was no difference between the groups in the setting and characters sub-categories. The current study is essential in revealing the contributions of current technological applications to students’ story-retelling performance. Thus, this study may encourage reading activities using augmented reality, as it demonstrates the practicality and usability of these applications in the context of traditional texts. Augmented reality applications can be used through many tools, such as smartphones, tablets, and smart boards. With the FATIH project, which was carried out in the context of equal opportunity in education in Turkey, tablets were distributed to students and smart boards were provided to schools. In addition, various infrastructure and equipment needs of schools were met. In this respect, AR applications can be used more widely in Turkey’s classroom environment than VR applications. On the other hand, schools still lack infrastructure and technological tools. These classes are unsuitable for AR and VR applications in reading education. In these classes, applications can only be carried out within the means of the teachers and students. Additionally, the limited number of studies in the literature on the technological applications tested in the research, especially virtual reality, makes our results noteworthy.
Limitations and recommendations
This study has some limitations. First, the age range of the participating students is 12–13 years old. Therefore, the results can be considered limited to this age range. Future studies can focus on this age group and different age groups, allowing for more general comments on the topic. In addition, using eye-tracking technology in future research will provide more detailed data on reading processes. This study used only quantitative data, but it is recommended that qualitative data be collected to get in-depth information about students’ experiences in new studies. Additionally, the sample size is limited to 100 students. Although large study groups are not often encountered in research on current technological tools, more studies are needed to generalize the results. Individual differences in students’ cognitive load in this study may also have affected their comprehension. These differences may also be taken into account in future studies. In addition, it may be necessary to draw attention to the issue of motion sickness in VR, especially in studies. Obtaining data on this situation from students in the studies to be carried out will provide more insight when evaluating the students’ performance. The current study is limited to a text from the 7th-grade native language textbook currently in use. Due to the need to prepare both virtual reality and augmented reality content, more texts were not prepared. In addition, this text is a narrative text. Therefore, future studies can adopt a similar research framework using different or multiple texts, contributing to the generalizability of the relevant results. Moreover, the preparation of the text used in the current study based on the textbook has shown that current technologies can be used in school settings. In this context, it is recommended that future research focus on integrating these technologies into school-used course materials. Additionally, studies should be conducted to establish design principles that answer questions such as how to prepare a reading text in a virtual environment or augmented reality texts. In addition, the current comparison is limited to the digital content used in this study. It should not be ignored that the results may be affected when different virtual reality and augmented reality contents are created. Finally, the focus of this study is limited to evaluating students’ retelling performance. It is recommended that future studies include reading comprehension tests to provide more in-depth insights into students’ reading comprehension.
References
- 1.
Perfetti CA, Landi N, Oakhill J. The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In: Snowling MJ, Hulme C, editors. The science of reading: a handbook. Wiley. 2013. p. 336–65.
- 2. Albadawi H. The influence of reading comprehension on reading fluency. Br J Engl Linguist. 2017;5(2):1–8.
- 3. Gough PB, Tunmer WE. Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education. 1986;7(1):6–10.
- 4.
National Reading Panel U, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development U. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. 2000.
- 5.
Blachowicz CLZ, Ogle D. Reading comprehension: strategies for independent learners. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford. 2008.
- 6. Dennis G, Walter E. The effects of repeated read-alouds on story comprehension as assessed through story retellings. Read Improv. 1995;32(3):140.
- 7. Gillon G, McNeill B, Scott A, Gath M, Westerveld M. Retelling stories: the validity of an online oral narrative task. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. 2023;39(2):150–74.
- 8.
Dijk TA van, Kintsch W. Cognitive Psychology and discourse: recalling and summarizing stories. Current Trends in Textlinguistics. DE GRUYTER. 1978. p. 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110853759.61
- 9. Mills CB, Diehl VA, Birkmire DP, Mou L. Procedural text: predictions of importance ratings and recall by models of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes. 1993;16(3):279–315.
- 10. Sadoski M, Goetz ET, Fritz JB. Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: implications for dual coding theory and text design. J Educ Psychol. 1993;85(2):291–304.
- 11. Smith EE, Swinney DA. The role of schemas in reading text: A real‐time examination. Discourse Processes. 1992;15(3):303–16.
- 12. Reed DK, Vaughn S. Retell as an Indicator of Reading Comprehension. Sci Stud Read. 2012;16(3):187–217. pmid:23125521
- 13. Collins AA, Compton DL, Lindström ER, Gilbert JK. Performance variations across reading comprehension assessments: Examining the unique contributions of text, activity, and reader. Read Writ. 2019;33(3):605–34.
- 14. Fong FTK, Mondloch CJ, Nelson NL. Interactive situations reveal more about children’s emotional knowledge. J Exp Child Psychol. 2020;198:104879. pmid:32590198
- 15. Hessling A, Schuele CM. Individualized Narrative Intervention for School-Age Children With Specific Language Impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2020;51(3):687–705. pmid:32293981
- 16. Sahibzada J, Ahmadzai YMB, Niaz A, Laftah SH. Effects of storytelling on improving EFL students’ critical thinking and reading comprehension. aijssr. 2020;5(1):33–47.
- 17. Spencer TD, Pierce C. Classroom‐based Oral Storytelling: Reading, Writing, and Social Benefits. The Reading Teacher. 2022;76(5):525–34.
- 18. Pace A, Alper R, Burchinal MR, Golinkoff RM, Hirsh-Pasek K. Measuring success: Within and cross-domain predictors of academic and social trajectories in elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019;46:112–25.
- 19. Petersen DB, Staskowski M, Spencer TD, Foster ME, Brough MP. The effects of a multitiered system of language support on kindergarten oral and written language: a large-scale randomized controlled trial. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2022;53(1):44–68. pmid:34860575
- 20. Gambrell LB, Koskinen PS, Kapinus BA. Retelling and the reading comprehension of proficient and less-proficient readers. The Journal of Educational Research. 1991;84(6):356–62.
- 21.
McCabe A. Children’s personal narratives reflect where they come from, reveal who they are and predict where they are going. The Routledge International Handbook of early Literacy Education. Routledge. 2017. p. 308–24. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315766027-28
- 22. Morrow L. Reading and retelling stories: strategies for emergent readers. Read Teach. 1985;38(9):870–5.
- 23. Lervåg A, Hulme C, Melby-Lervåg M. Unpicking the Developmental Relationship Between Oral Language Skills and Reading Comprehension: It’s Simple, But Complex. Child Dev. 2018;89(5):1821–38. pmid:28605008
- 24. Petersen DB, Mesquita MW, Spencer TD, Waldron J. Examining the Effects of Multitiered Oral Narrative Language Instruction on Reading Comprehension and Writing. Topics in Language Disorders. 2020;40(4):E25–39.
- 25. Isbell R, Sobol J, Lindauer L, Lowrance A. The Effects of Storytelling and Story Reading on the Oral Language Complexity and Story Comprehension of Young Children. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2004;32(3):157–63.
- 26. Cao Y, Kim Y-SG. Is Retell a Valid Measure of Reading Comprehension?. Educ Res Rev. 2021;32:100375. pmid:33456495
- 27. Bus A, Takacs Z, Kegel C. Affordances and limitations of electronic storybooks for young children’s emergent literacy. Dev Rev. 2015;35:79–97.
- 28. Ertem IS. Understanding interactive CD-ROM storybooks and their functions in reading comprehension: A critical review. Int J Progress Educ. 2011;7(1):28–44.
- 29. Kao G, Tsai C, Liu C, Yang C. The effects of high/low interactive electronic storybooks on elementary school students’ reading motivation, story comprehension and chromatics concepts. Comput Educ. 2016;100:56–70.
- 30. Lauricella AR, Barr R, Calvert SL. Parent–child interactions during traditional and computer storybook reading for children’s comprehension: Implications for electronic storybook design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2014;2(1):17–25.
- 31. Zhou N, Yadav A. Effects of multimedia story reading and questioning on preschoolers’ vocabulary learning, story comprehension and reading engagement. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2017;65:1523–45.
- 32. Tsou W, Wang W, Tzeng Y. Applying a multimedia storytelling website in foreign language learning. Comput Educ. 2006;47(1):17–28.
- 33. Lim J, Whitehead GE, Choi Y. Interactive e-book reading vs. paper-based reading: comparing the effects of different mediums on middle school students’ reading comprehension. Syst. 2021;97:102434.
- 34. Zipke M. Preschoolers explore interactive storybook apps: the effect on word recognition and story comprehension. Educ Inf Technol. 2017;22(4):1695–712.
- 35. Cheng K, Tsai C. The interaction of child–parent shared reading with an augmented reality (AR) picture book and parents’ conceptions of AR learning. Br J Educ Technol. 2016;47(1):203–22.
- 36. Danaei D, Jamali HR, Mansourian Y, Rastegarpour H. Comparing reading comprehension between children reading augmented reality and print storybooks. Computers & Education. 2020;153:103900.
- 37. Drljević N, Botički I, Wong LH. Investigating the different facets of student engagement during augmented reality use in primary school. Br J Educ Technol. 2022;53(5):1361–88.
- 38. Habig S. Who can benefit from augmented reality in chemistry? Sex differences in solving stereochemistry problems using augmented reality. Br J Educ Technol. 2020;51(3):629–44.
- 39. Acar A, Cavas B. The effect of virtual reality enhanced learning environment on the 7th-grade students reading and writing skills in English. MOJES: Malays Online J Educ Sci. 2020;8(4):22–33.
- 40. Alfadil M. Effectiveness of virtual reality game in foreign language vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education. 2020;153:103893.
- 41. Chen C, Hung H, Yeh H. Virtual reality in problem‐based learning contexts: Effects on the problem‐solving performance, vocabulary acquisition and motivation of English language learners. Computer Assisted Learning. 2021;37(3):851–60.
- 42. Chen B, Wang Y, Wang L. The Effects of Virtual Reality-Assisted Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability. 2022;14(6):3147.
- 43. Dreher C, Reiners T, Dreher N, Dreher H. Virtual worlds as a context suited for information systems education: discussion of pedagogical experience and curriculum design with reference to secon life. J Inf Syst Educ. 2009;20(2):211–24.
- 44. Ebadi S, Ebadijalal M. The effect of Google Expeditions virtual reality on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate and oral proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2020;35(8):1975–2000.
- 45. Bonner E, Reinders H. Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: practical ideas. Teach Engl Technol. 2018;18(3):33–53.
- 46. Tsai C-C. The Effects of Augmented Reality to Motivation and Performance in EFL Vocabulary Learning. Int J Instruction. 2020;13(4):987–1000.
- 47. Bartell AL, Schultz LD, Spyridakis JH. The effect of heading frequency on comprehension of print versus online information. Tech Commun. 2006;53(4):416–26.
- 48. Mangen A, Walgermo BR, Brønnick K. Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. Int J Educ Res. 2013;58:61–8.
- 49. Margolin SJ, Driscoll C, Toland MJ, Kegler JL. E‐readers, computer screens, or paper: does reading comprehension change across media platforms?. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2013;27(4):512–9.
- 50. Lenhard W, Schroeders U, Lenhard A. Equivalence of Screen Versus Print Reading Comprehension Depends on Task Complexity and Proficiency. Discourse Processes. 2017;54(5–6):427–45.
- 51. Rubio-Tamayo J, Gertrudix Barrio M, García García F. Immersive Environments and Virtual Reality: Systematic Review and Advances in Communication, Interaction and Simulation. MTI. 2017;1(4):21.
- 52. Lin J-HT. Fear in virtual reality (VR): Fear elements, coping reactions, immediate and next-day fright responses toward a survival horror zombie virtual reality game. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017;72:350–61.
- 53. Jensen L, Konradsen F. A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Educ Inf Technol. 2017;23(4):1515–29.
- 54. Connecting digital literacy in higher education to the 21st century workforce. Knowl Manag E-Learning. 2022;:46–61.
- 55. Yang JC, Chen CH, Chang Jeng M. Integrating video-capture virtual reality technology into a physically interactive learning environment for English learning. Computers & Education. 2010;55(3):1346–56.
- 56. Parmaxi A. Virtual reality in language learning: a systematic review and implications for research and practice. Interactive Learning Environments. 2020;31(1):172–84.
- 57. Kwok APK, Yan M, Xu ZH, Lin JY, Chen RD, Wen SL. Effects of line length, number of lines, line spacing, and font size on reading performance of Chinese text in virtual reality environment. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2023;96:103469.
- 58. Deak MD, Porter WP, Mathewson PD, Lovelace DM, Flores RJ, Tripati AK, et al. Metabolic skinflint or spendthrift? Insights into ground sloth integument and thermophysiology revealed by biophysical modeling and clumped isotope paleothermometry. J Mamm Evol. 2025;32(1):1. pmid:39822851
- 59. Zhang S. Augmented reality in foreign language education: a review of empirical studies. J Technol Chin Lang Teach. 2018;9(2):116–33.
- 60. OZDEMIR M, SAHIN C, ARCAGOK S, DEMIR MK. The Effect of Augmented Reality Applications in the Learning Process: A MetaAnalysis Study. EJER. 2018;18:1–22.
- 61. ChanLin L-J. Bridging Children’s Reading with an Augmented Reality Story Library. Libri. 2018;68(3):219–29.
- 62. Çetin H, Ulusoy M. The effect of augmented reality-based reading environments on retelling skills: Formative experiment. Educ Inf Technol. 2022;28(5):5849–73.
- 63. Qiu X bin, Shan C, Yao J, Fu Q ke. The effects of virtual reality on EFL learning: A meta-analysis. Educ Inf Technol. 2023;29(2):1379–405.
- 64. Hwang G, Chen C. Influences of an inquiry‐based ubiquitous gaming design on students’ learning achievements, motivation, behavioral patterns, and tendency towards critical thinking and problem solving. Brit J Educational Tech. 2016;48(4):950–71.
- 65. Chen Y-C, Chi H-L, Hung W-H, Kang S-C. Use of Tangible and Augmented Reality Models in Engineering Graphics Courses. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract. 2011;137(4):267–76.
- 66. Çetinkaya Özdemir E, Akyol H. Effect of Augmented Reality-Based Reading Activities on Some Reading Variables and Participation in Class. IJPE. 2021;17(4):135–54.
- 67. Alalwan N, Cheng L, Al-Samarraie H, Yousef R, Ibrahim Alzahrani A, Sarsam SM. Challenges and Prospects of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality Utilization among Primary School Teachers: A Developing Country Perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2020;66:100876.
- 68. Al-Ansi AM, Jaboob M, Garad A, Al-Ansi A. Analyzing augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) recent development in education. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2023;8(1):100532.
- 69. AlGerafi MAM, Zhou Y, Oubibi M, Wijaya TT. Unlocking the Potential: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Education. Electronics. 2023;12(18):3953.
- 70. Bacca J, Baldiris S, Fabregat R, . Insights Into the Factors Influencing Student Motivation in Augmented Reality Learning Experiences in Vocational Education and Training. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1486. pmid:30186196
- 71. Chang H-Y, Binali T, Liang J-C, Chiou G-L, Cheng K-H, Lee SW-Y, et al. Ten years of augmented reality in education: A meta-analysis of (quasi-) experimental studies to investigate the impact. Computers & Education. 2022;191:104641.
- 72. Çakır N. Virtual reality games in foreign language education: a systematic review. Lang Learn Technol. 2024;4(1):13–37.
- 73. Duarte ML, Santos LR, Guimarães Júnior JB, Peccin MS. Learning anatomy by virtual reality and augmented reality. A scope review. Morphologie. 2020;104(347):254–66. pmid:32972816
- 74. Fitria TN. Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) Technology in Education: Media of Teaching and Learning: A Review. IJCIS. 2023;4(1):14–25.
- 75. Koparan T, Dinar H, Koparan ET, Haldan ZS. Integrating augmented reality into mathematics teaching and learning and examining its effectiveness. Think Ski Creat. 2023;47:101245.
- 76. Udeozor C, Chan P, Russo Abegão F, Glassey J. Game-based assessment framework for virtual reality, augmented reality and digital game-based learning. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2023;20(1).
- 77.
Jumani AK, Siddique WA, Laghari AA, Abro A, Khan AA. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality for Education. Multimedia Computing Systems and Virtual Reality. CRC Press. 2022. p. 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003196686-9
- 78. Wedel M, Bigné E, Zhang J. Virtual and augmented reality: Advancing research in consumer marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2020;37(3):443–65.
- 79. Zhao X, Ren Y, Cheah KSL. Leading Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) in Education: Bibliometric and Content Analysis From the Web of Science (2018–2022). Sage Open. 2023;13(3).
- 80.
Fassi F., Mandelli A., Teruggi S., Rechichi F., Fiorillo F., and Achille C. VR for culture heritage. In Tommaso De Paolis L, Mongelli A, Editors. International conference on augmented reality, virtual reality and computer graphics (Vol. 2016, pp. 139-–157). Spring International Publishing; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25999-0_13
- 81.
Barfield W, Zeltzer D, Sheridan T, Slater M. Presence and performance within virtual environments. In: Barfield W, Furness TI, editors. Virtual environments and advanced interface design. New York: Oxford University Press. 1995. p. 473–513.
- 82. Zheng JM, Chan KW, Gibson I. Virtual reality. IEEE Potentials. 1998;17(2):20–3.
- 83.
LaValle S. Virtual reality. Cambridge University Press; 2023.
- 84. Sagnier C, Loup-Escande E, Lourdeaux D, Thouvenin I, Valléry G. User Acceptance of Virtual Reality: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2020;36(11):993–1007.
- 85. Wohlgenannt I, Simons A, Stieglitz S. Virtual Reality. Bus Inf Syst Eng. 2020;62(5):455–61.
- 86. Bowman DA, McMahan RP. Virtual reality: how much immersion is enough?. Computer. 2007;40(7):36–43.
- 87. Chang S-C, Hsu T-C, Jong MS-Y. Integration of the peer assessment approach with a virtual reality design system for learning earth science. Comput Educ. 2020;146:103758.
- 88. Emmelkamp PMG, Meyerbröker K. Virtual Reality Therapy in Mental Health. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2021;17:495–519. pmid:33606946
- 89. Ibáñez M-B, Delgado-Kloos C. Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Comput Educ. 2018;123:109–23.
- 90. Li H, Zhang X, Wang H, Yang Z, Liu H, Cao Y, et al. Access to Nature via Virtual Reality: A Mini-Review. Front Psychol. 2021;12:725288. pmid:34675840
- 91. Loureiro A, Bettencourt T. The Use of Virtual Environments as an Extended Classroom – A Case Study with Adult Learners in Tertiary Education. Procedia Technol. 2014;13:97–106.
- 92. Cai S, Chiang F-K, Sun Y, Lin C, Lee JJ. Applications of augmented reality-based natural interactive learning in magnetic field instruction. Interactive Learning Environments. 2016;25(6):778–91.
- 93. Pellas N, Fotaris P, Kazanidis I, Wells D. Augmenting the learning experience in primary and secondary school education: a systematic review of recent trends in augmented reality game-based learning. Virtual Reality. 2018;23(4):329–46.
- 94. Radianti J, Majchrzak TA, Fromm J, Wohlgenannt I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education. 2020;147:103778.
- 95. Chien S-Y, Hwang G-J, Jong MS-Y. Effects of peer assessment within the context of spherical video-based virtual reality on EFL students’ English-Speaking performance and learning perceptions. Computers & Education. 2020;146:103751.
- 96. Cowie N, Alizadeh M. The affordances and challenges of virtual reality for language teaching. Int. J. TESOL Stud. 2022; 4(3).
- 97. Lan Y. Immersion into virtual reality for language learning. Psychol Learn Motiv. 2020;72:1–26.
- 98. Lin T, Lan Y. Learning language in virtual reality environments: past, present, and future. J Educ Technol Soc. 2015;18(4):486–97.
- 99.
Tseng M, Geng Z. Implementing virtual reality–enhanced tasks in Chinese language teaching. Contextual language learning: Real language learning on the continuum from virtuality to reality. Singapore: Springer Singapore. 2021. p. 91–118.
- 100.
Qiu H, Fang W, Bao H, Wang X. A feasibility study of virtual reality technology in guidance design of underground space. In: Advances in ergonomics in design: Proceedings of the AHFE 2021 Virtual Conference on Ergonomics in Design. Springer International Publishing. 2021. 605–13.
- 101. Zheng C, Yu M, Guo Z, Liu H, Gao M, Chai CS. Review of the application of virtual reality in language education from 2010 to 2020. Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning. 2022;2(2):299–335.
- 102. Dalton G, Devitt A. Irish in a 3D world: engaging primary school children. Lang Learn Technol. 2016;20(1):21–33.
- 103. Wang Z-R, Wang P, Xing L, Mei L-P, Zhao J, Zhang T. Leap Motion-based virtual reality training for improving motor functional recovery of upper limbs and neural reorganization in subacute stroke patients. Neural Regen Res. 2017;12(11):1823–31. pmid:29239328
- 104.
Gruber A, Kaplan-Rakowski R. User experience of public speaking practice in virtual reality. Cognitive and affective perspectives on immersive technology in education. Hershey PA: IGI Global. 2020. p. 235–49.
- 105. Thrasher T. The Impact of Virtual Reality on L2 French Learners’ Language Anxiety and Oral Comprehensibility. CALICO J. 2022;39(2):219–38.
- 106. Cheng K-H, Tsai C-C. Children and parents’ reading of an augmented reality picture book: Analyses of behavioral patterns and cognitive attainment. Comput Educ. 2014;72:302–12.
- 107. Hsu W-Y. Brain–computer interface connected to telemedicine and telecommunication in virtual reality applications. Telemat Inform. 2017;34(4):224–38.
- 108. Li H, Wang W. Research on the design of an online learning environment based on embodied cognition: taking the design and development of English online virtual learning community in primary school as an example. Distance Educ China. 2016;02:71–8.
- 109.
Kaplan-Rakowski R, Gruber A. One-on-one foreign language speaking practice in high-immersion virtual reality. Contextual language learning: Real language learning on the continuum from virtuality to reality. Singapore: Springer Singapore. 2021. p. 187–202.
- 110. Kruk M. Dynamicity of perceived willingness to communicate, motivation, boredom and anxiety in Second Life: the case of two advanced learners of English. Comput Assist Lang Learn. 2019;35(1–2):190–216.
- 111. Chuang Y, Cheng K. Literary reading by virtual reality: the role of empathy in behavioral intention and reading comprehension. J Educ Media Libr Sci. 2023;60(1):77–111.
- 112. Kaplan‐Rakowski R, Gruber A. An experimental study on reading in high‐immersion virtual reality. Brit J Educational Tech. 2023;55(2):541–59.
- 113. Lee A. Using virtual reality to test academic listening proficiency. 영어학. 2019;19(4): 688-–712.
- 114. Pack A, Barrett A, Liang HN, Monteiro DV. University EAP students’ perceptions of using a prototype virtual reality learning environment to learn writing structure. Int J Comput Assist Lang Learn Teach. 2020;10(1):27–46.
- 115. Yang F, Lo F, Hsieh J, Wu W. Facilitating communicative ability of EFL learners via high-immersion virtual reality. J Educ Technol Soc. 2020;23(1):30–49.
- 116. Mroz A. The development of second language critical thinking in a virtual language learning environment: A process-oriented mixed-method study. CALICO Journal. 2015;32(3):528–53.
- 117. Legault J, Zhao J, Chi Y-A, Chen W, Klippel A, Li P. Immersive Virtual Reality as an Effective Tool for Second Language Vocabulary Learning. Languages. 2019;4(1):13.
- 118.
Papin K, Kaplan-Rakowski R. An exploratory analysis of the impact of learners’ first language on vocabulary recall using immersive technologies. In: CALL for widening participation: Short papers from EUROCALL. 2020.
- 119. Tai AX, Sack KD, Herur-Raman A, Jean WC. The benefits of limited orbitotomy on the supraorbital approach: an anatomic and morphometric study in virtual reality. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2020;18(5):542–50. pmid:31334552
- 120. Chen Y-L. The Effects of Virtual Reality Learning Environment on Student Cognitive and Linguistic Development. Asia-Pacific Edu Res. 2016;25(4):637–46.
- 121. Lan Y. Does second life improve Mandarin learning by overseas Chinese students?. Lang Learn Technol. 2014;18(2):36–56.
- 122. Levak N, Son J-B. Facilitating second language learners’ listening comprehension with Second Life and Skype. ReCALL. 2016;29(2):200–18.
- 123. Peterson M. Massively multiplayer online role-playing games as arenas for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2010;23(5):429–39.
- 124. Kozlova I, Priven D. Esl teacher training in 3d virtual worlds. Lang Learn Technol. 2015;19(1):83–101.
- 125. Makransky G, Terkildsen TS, Mayer RE. Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learn Instr. 2019;60:225–36.
- 126. Meyer OA, Omdahl MK, Makransky G. Investigating the effect of pre-training when learning through immersive virtual reality and video: A media and methods experiment. Comput Educ. 2019;140:103603.
- 127. Moreno R, Mayer RE. Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: role of methods and media. J Educ Psychol. 2002;94(3):598.
- 128. Parong J, Mayer RE. Learning science in immersive virtual reality. J Educ Psychol. 2018;110(6):785.
- 129. Zheng C, Lu Z, Liu H, Wang L, Han X. Exploring Chinese EFL learners’ conceptions of and engagement in a self-developed 3D virtual environment. Tech Enhanced Foreign Lang Educ. 2021;2021(02):85–92.
- 130. Chen J, Kent S. Task engagement, learner motivation and avatar identities of struggling English language learners in the 3D virtual world. System. 2020;88:102168.
- 131. Bankowski E. Developing skills for effective academic presentations in EAP. Int J Teach Learn High Educ. 2010;22(2):187–96. (1) (PDF) The added benefit of an extra practice session in virtual reality on the development of presentation skills: A randomized control trial.
- 132. Yin K, He Z, Xiong J, Zou J, Li K, Wu S-T. Virtual reality and augmented reality displays: advances and future perspectives. J Phys Photonics. 2021;3(2):022010.
- 133.
Kirner C, Kirner TG. Evolução e tendências da realidade virtual e da realidade aumentada. Realidade virtual e aumentada: aplicações e tendências. Cap. 2011. p. 10–25.
- 134. Peeters D. Virtual reality: a game-changing method for the language sciences. Psychon Bull Rev. 2019;26(3):894–900. pmid:30734158
- 135. Yu C-H, Wu C-C, Wang J-S, Chen H-Y, Lin Y-T. Learning tennis through video-based reflective learning by using motion-tracking sensors. Educ Technol Soc. 2020;23(1):64–77.
- 136. Rau P-LP, Zheng J, Guo Z, Li J. Speed reading on virtual reality and augmented reality. Computers & Education. 2018;125:240–5.
- 137. Baceviciute S, Terkildsen T, Makransky G. Remediating learning from non-immersive to immersive media: Using EEG to investigate the effects of environmental embeddedness on reading in Virtual Reality. Computers & Education. 2021;164:104122.
- 138. şimşek B. Dil öğretiminde sanal gerçeklik uygulamalarinin kullanimi. TEKE. 2023;:816–36.
- 139. Parmaxi A, Demetriou AA. Augmented reality in language learning: A state‐of‐the‐art review of 2014–2019. J Comput Assist Learn. 2020;36(6):861–75.
- 140.
Chang G, Morreale P, Medicherla P. Applications of augmented reality systems in education. In: Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. 2010. 1380–5.
- 141.
Craig AB. What Is Augmented Reality?. Understanding Augmented Reality. Elsevier. 2013. p. 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-240-82408-6.00001-1
- 142.
Furht B. Handbook of augmented reality. Springer Science & Business Media. 2011.
- 143. Carmigniani J, Furht B, Anisetti M, Ceravolo P, Damiani E, Ivkovic M. Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimed Tools Appl. 2010;51(1):341–77.
- 144.
Caudell T, Mizell D. Augmented reality: an application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1992. 659–69.
- 145. Bajura M, Fuchs H, Ohbuchi R. Merging virtual objects with the real world. SIGGRAPH Comput Graph. 1992;26(2):203–10.
- 146. Arena F, Collotta M, Pau G, Termine F. An overview of augmented reality. Computers. 2022;11(2):28.
- 147.
Boscarol M. Cos’è lo User-Centered Design; 2021. Available from: https://www.usabile.it/302007.htm
- 148. Merchant Z, Goetz ET, Cifuentes L, Keeney-Kennicutt W, Davis TJ. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: a meta-analysis. Computers & Education. 2014;70:29–40.
- 149.
Norman D, Draper S. User-centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction. CRC Press. 1986.
- 150.
Schmalstieg D, Hollerer T. Augmented reality: principles and practice. Addison-Wesley Professional. 2016.
- 151. Amores-Valencia A, Burgos D, Branch-Bedoya JW. The impact of Augmented Reality (AR) on the academic performance of high school students. Electronics. 2023;12(10):2173.
- 152. Chang Y, Hou H, Pan C, Sung Y, Chang K. Apply an augmented reality in a mobile guidance to increase sense of place for heritage places. J Educ Technol Soc. 2015;:166–78.
- 153.
Vinumol K, Chowdhury A, Kambam R, Muralidharan V. Augmented reality based interactive text book: an assistive technology for students with learning disability. In: Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality, SVR 2013. 2013.
- 154. Cheng K-H. Reading an augmented reality book: An exploration of learners’ cognitive load, motivation, and attitudes. AJET. 2016.
- 155. Dibrova A. AR books and pre-school children’s engagement. (Degree Thesis, Malmö Universty, Sweden); 2016. Available from: http://muep.mau.se/handle/2043/21074atOctober2018
- 156. Hung Y ‐H., Chen C ‐H., Huang S ‐W. Applying augmented reality to enhance learning: a study of different teaching materials. Computer Assisted Learning. 2016;33(3):252–66.
- 157. Ferrer-Torregrosa J, Torralba J, Jimenez MA, García S, Barcia JM. ARBOOK: Development and assessment of a tool based on augmented reality for anatomy. J Sci Educ Technol. 2014;24(1):119–24.
- 158. Cai Y, Pan Z, Liu M. Augmented reality technology in language learning: Ameta‐analysis. Computer Assisted Learning. 2022;38(4):929–45.
- 159. Mozaffari S, Hamidi HR. Impacts of augmented reality on foreign language teaching: a case study of Persian language. Multimed Tools Appl. 2023;82(3):4735–48. pmid:35729930
- 160. Karacan CG, Akoğlu K. Educational Augmented Reality Technology for Language Learning and Teaching: A Comprehensive Review. education. 2021;9(2):68–79.
- 161. Akçayır M, Akçayır G. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review. 2017;20:1–11.
- 162. Dunleavy M, Dede C, Mitchell R. Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning. J Sci Educ Technol. 2008;18(1):7–22.
- 163. Izzati UA, Bachri BS, Sahid M, Indriani DE. Character education: gender differences in moral knowing, moral feeling, and moral action in elementary schools in indonesia. J Educ Gift Young Sci. 2019;7(3):547–56.
- 164. Almusharraf N. Incorporation of a game-based approach into the EFL online classrooms: students’ perceptions. Interactive Learning Environments. 2021;31(7):4440–53.
- 165. Khodabandeh F. Investigating the effectiveness of augmented reality-enhanced instruction on EFL learners’ speaking in online flipped and face-to-face classes. Language Teaching Research. 2022.
- 166. Lin X-F, Tang D, Shen W, Liang Z-M, Tang Y, Tsai C-C. Exploring the relationship between perceived technology-assisted teacher support and technology-embedded scientific inquiry: the mediation effect of hardiness. International Journal of Science Education. 2020;42(8):1225–52.
- 167. Bursali H, Yilmaz RM. Effect of augmented reality applications on secondary school students’ reading comprehension and learning permanency. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019;95:126–35.
- 168. Şimşek B, Direkçi B. The effects of augmented reality storybooks on student’s reading comprehension. Brit J Educational Tech. 2022;54(3):754–72.
- 169. Zhou Z, Cheok AD, Yang X, Qiu Y. An experimental study on the role of 3D sound in augmented reality environment. Interacting with Computers. 2004;16(6):1043–68.
- 170.
Corbett-Davies S, Dünser A, Clark A. An interactive augmented reality system for exposure treatment. In: 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality-Arts, Media, and Humanities (ISMAR-AMH). IEEE. 2012. 95–6.
- 171.
Dünser A, Hornecker E. Lessons from an AR book study. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. ACM. 2007. 179–82.
- 172.
Kyungwon Gil, Jimin Rhim, Ha T, Young Yim Doh, Woo W. AR Petite Theater: Augmented reality storybook for supporting children’s empathy behavior. In: 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality - Media, Art, Social Science, Humanities and Design (IMSAR-MASH’D). IEEE. 2014. 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/ismar-amh.2014.6935433
- 173.
Grasset R, Dünser A, Billinghurst M. Edutainment with a mixed reality book. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACM. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1145/1501750.1501819
- 174.
Kauppinen S, Luojus S, Tuomisto J, Ahlgren A. Utilizing Gesture Recognition Technology in Children’s Interactive Storybook. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Making Sense of Converging Media. ACM. 2013. 76–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/2523429.2523474
- 175. Azuma R, Baillot Y, Behringer R, Feiner S, Julier S, MacIntyre B. Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput Grap Appl. 2001;21(6):34–47.
- 176. Cheng Q, Zhang S, Bo S, Chen D, Zhang H. Augmented Reality Dynamic Image Recognition Technology Based on Deep Learning Algorithm. IEEE Access. 2020;8:137370–84.
- 177. Tobar-Muñoz H, Baldiris S, Fabregat R. Augmented Reality Game-Based Learning: Enriching Students’ Experience During Reading Comprehension Activities. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2017;55(7):901–36.
- 178. Liu S, Sui Y, You Z, Shi J, Wang Z, Zhong C. Reading better with AR or print picture books? A quasi-experiment on primary school students’ reading comprehension, story retelling and reading motivation. Educ Inf Technol. 2023;29(9):11625–44.
- 179. Liao C-HD, Wu W-CV, Gunawan V, Chang T-C. Using an Augmented-Reality Game-Based Application to Enhance Language Learning and Motivation of Elementary School EFL Students: A Comparative Study in Rural and Urban Areas. Asia-Pacific Edu Res. 2023;33(2):307–19.
- 180.
Alexander B. The new digital storytelling: creating narratives with new media--revised and updated edition. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. 2017.
- 181. Kim Y-SG, Dore R, Cho M, Golinkoff R, Amendum S. Theory of mind, mental state talk, and discourse comprehension: Theory of mind process is more important for narrative comprehension than for informational text comprehension. J Exp Child Psychol. 2021;209:105181. pmid:34049060
- 182. Kim Y-SG, Wagner RK. Text (Oral) Reading Fluency as a Construct in Reading Development: An Investigation of its Mediating Role for Children from Grades 1 to 4. Sci Stud Read. 2015;19(3):224–42. pmid:25848201
- 183. Kim Y-SG. Hierarchical and dynamic relations of language and cognitive skills to reading comprehension: Testing the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER). Journal of Educational Psychology. 2020;112(4):667–84.
- 184. Reed DK, Vaughn S, Petscher Y. The Validity of a Holistically Scored Retell Protocol for Determining the Reading Comprehension of Middle School Students. Learn Disabil Q. 2012;35(2):76–89. pmid:23097594
- 185. Furenes MI, Kucirkova N, Bus AG. A Comparison of Children’s Reading on Paper Versus Screen: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2021;91(4):483–517.
- 186. Alhumaidan H, Lo KPY, Selby A. Co-designing with children a collaborative augmented reality book based on a primary school textbook. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2018;15:24–36.
- 187. Damayanti IL, Febrianti Y. Multimodal literacy: Unfolding reading path in children’s picture book and its potential for EFL classrooms. Indonesian J Appl Linguist. 2020;9(3):616–27.
- 188. Wang C-M. Retelling Chinese Stories in the Era of Global China: On Ha Jin’s Immigrant Novels. Contemporary Lit. 2023;63(3):399–423.
- 189. Yeari M, Hadad A, Korat O. The effect of amount, type and reoccurrence of interactions in electronic books on word learning and story comprehension by kindergartners. Educ Inf Technol. 2024;29(6):6841–63.
- 190. Zhang R, Zou D. Types, purposes, and effectiveness of state-of-the-art technologies for second and foreign language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2020;35(4):696–742.
- 191. Cheng K-H, Tsai C-C. Affordances of Augmented Reality in Science Learning: Suggestions for Future Research. J Sci Educ Technol. 2012;22(4):449–62.
- 192. Suryani YA, Utaminingsih S, Madjdi AH. Needs analysis of picture story book using augmented reality technology. J Phys: Conf Ser. 2021;1823(1):012083.
- 193. Bressler DM, Bodzin AM. A mixed methods assessment of students’ flow experiences during a mobile augmented reality science game. Computer Assisted Learning. 2013;29(6):505–17.
- 194. Wu H-K, Lee SW-Y, Chang H-Y, Liang J-C. Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education. 2013;62:41–9.
- 195. Papanastasiou G, Drigas A, Skianis C, Lytras M, Papanastasiou E. Virtual and augmented reality effects on K-12, higher and tertiary education students’ twenty-first century skills. Virtual Reality. 2018;23(4):425–36.
- 196.
Beaulieu S. Approaching Virtual Reality Storytelling. Storytelling for New Technologies and Platforms. CRC Press. 2022. p. 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003141594-4
- 197. Chen H. Comparative Analysis of Storytelling in Virtual Reality Games vs. Traditional Games. EHSS. 2024;30:163–72.
- 198.
Christofi M, Hadjipanayi C, Michael-Grigoriou D. The Use of Storytelling in Virtual Reality for Studying Empathy: A Review. In: 2022 International Conference on Interactive Media, Smart Systems and Emerging Technologies (IMET). IEEE. 2022. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/imet54801.2022.9929546
- 199.
Gong Z, Gonçalves M, Nanjappan V, Georgiev GV. VR storytelling to prime uncertainty avoidance. In: International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. 2023. 103–16.
- 200. Huang Y, Benford S, Spence J, Blake H. Exploring Effects of a Nostalgic Storytelling Virtual Reality Experience Beyond Hedonism. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2024;27(3):221–6. pmid:38153373
- 201.
Wolfe A, Louchart S, Loranger B. The impacts of design elements in interactive storytelling in vr on emotion, mood, and self-reflection. In: International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2022. 616–33.
- 202. Yang S, Zhang W. Presence and Flow in the Context of Virtual Reality Storytelling: What Influences Enjoyment in Virtual Environments?. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2022;25(2):101–9. pmid:34962138
- 203. Hadjistassou S, Joannidou S, Molina P, Louca P, Papmehl-Dufay L. Developing augmented reality applications to promote digital storytelling: The cases of Choirokoitia and Sandby Borg. Educ Inf. 2023;39(2):187–201.
- 204. Levstek M, Papworth S, Woods A, Archer L, Arshad I, Dodds K, et al. Immersive storytelling for pro-environmental behaviour change: The Green Planet augmented reality experience. Computers in Human Behavior. 2024;161:108379.
- 205. Mahmoud S, Algabry A, Morsy A. Storytelling Using Augmented Reality Techniques and its Impact on Advertising Recipients. Journal of Design Sciences and Applied Arts. 2024;5(1):270–80.
- 206. Ersanli C. The effect of using augmented reality with storytelling on young learners’ vocabulary learning and retention. Novitas-ROYAL. 2023;17(1):62–72.
- 207. Zhu C, Hall CM, Fong LHN, Liu CYN, Naderi Koupaei S. Does a good story prompt visit intention? Evidence from the augmented reality experience at a heritage site in China. Journal of Heritage Tourism. 2023;18(4):427–44.
- 208. Barreda-Ángeles M, Aleix-Guillaume S, Pereda-Baños A. Virtual reality storytelling as a double-edged sword: Immersive presentation of nonfiction 360°-video is associated with impaired cognitive information processing. Communication Monographs. 2020;88(2):154–73.
- 209. Çoban M, Topuz AC, Karabulut A, K. F. Chiu T. Comparing Realities: A Study on the Impact of Virtual Reality versus Paper-Based Reading on Higher Education Students’ Comprehension Skills. Participatory Educational Research. 2024;11(4):19–36.
- 210. Jones S. Disrupting the narrative: immersive journalism in virtual reality. Journal of Media Practice. 2017;18(2–3):171–85.
- 211. Fox JR, Park B, Lang A. When Available Resources Become Negative Resources. Communication Research. 2007;34(3):277–96.
- 212. Huang CL, Luo YF, Yang SC, Lu CM, Chen A-S. Influence of Students’ Learning Style, Sense of Presence, and Cognitive Load on Learning Outcomes in an Immersive Virtual Reality Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2019;58(3):596–615.
- 213. Hu PJ-H, Hu H, Fang X. Examining the Mediating Roles of Cognitive Load and Performance Outcomes in User Satisfaction with a Website: A Field Quasi-Experiment. MISQ. 2017;41(3):975–87.
- 214. Bower M, Sturman D. What are the educational affordances of wearable technologies?. Computers & Education. 2015;88:343–53.
- 215.
Zheleva A, De Letter J, Durnez W, Rousseaux S, De Marez L. Can you make the cut? exploring the effect of frequency of cuts in virtual reality storytelling. Augmented reality and virtual reality: new trends in immersive technology. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2021. p. 45–52.
- 216. Gómez‐Rios MD, Paredes‐Velasco M, Hernández‐Beleño RD, Fuentes‐Pinargote JA. Analysis of emotions in the use of augmented reality technologies in education: A systematic review. Comp Applic In Engineering. 2022;31(1):216–34.
- 217. Paredes-Velasco M, Velázquez-Iturbide JÁ, Gómez-Ríos M. Augmented reality with algorithm animation and their effect on students’ emotions. Multimed Tools Appl. 2023;82(8):11819–45. pmid:36090153
- 218.
Chang YS, Chang YJ, Liao CH. Enabling individuals with cognitive impairments to autonomously manage vocational tasks through use of a mobile augmented reality system. In: Viteli J, Leikomaa M, editors. Proceedings of EdMedia 2014--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. 2014. 2612–7.
- 219. Romano M, Díaz P, Aedo I. Empowering teachers to create augmented reality experiences: the effects on the educational experience. Interactive Learning Environments. 2020;31(3):1546–63.
- 220. Dunleavy M. Design Principles for Augmented Reality Learning. TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS. 2013;58(1):28–34.
- 221. Cruz de Quirós AM, Lara‐Alecio R, Tong F, Irby BJ. The effect of a structured story reading intervention, story retelling and higher order thinking for English language and literacy acquisition. Journal Research in Reading. 2011;35(1):87–113.
- 222. Şimşek B, Direkci B, Koparan B, Canbulat M, Gülmez M, Nalçacıgil E. Examining the effect of augmented reality experience duration on reading comprehension and cognitive load. Educ Inf Technol. 2024;30(2):1445–64.
- 223. Flores-Gallegos R, Rodríguez-Leis P, Fernández T. Effects of a virtual reality training program on visual attention and motor performance in children with reading learning disability. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2022;32:100394.
- 224. Cai S, Wang X, Chiang F-K. A case study of Augmented Reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014;37:31–40.
- 225. Barreira TV, Staiano AE, Harrington DM, Heymsfield SB, Smith SR, Bouchard C, et al. Anthropometric correlates of total body fat, abdominal adiposity, and cardiovascular disease risk factors in a biracial sample of men and women. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87(5):452–60. pmid:22560524
- 226.
Şahin, D. Effect of science teaching with the augmented reality technology on secondary school students’ achievement and their attitude towards the course. Atatürk Üniversitesi; 2017.
- 227. BÜLBÜL H, ÖZDİNÇ F. How Real is Augmented Reality in Preschool? Examination of Young Children’s AR Experiences. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim. 2022;15(4):884–906.
- 228. Delello J. Insights from pre-service teachers using science-based augmented reality. J Comput Educ. 2014;1:295–311.
- 229. Di Serio A, Ibáñez M, Kloos C. Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Comput Educ. :586–96.
- 230. Albayrak S, Yilmaz RM. An Investigation of Pre-School Children’s Interactions with Augmented Reality Applications. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2021;38(2):165–84.
- 231. Billinghurst M, Duenser A. Augmented Reality in the Classroom. Computer. 2012;45(7):56–63.
- 232. Yuen SC-Y, Yaoyuneyong G, Johnson E. Augmented Reality: An Overview and Five Directions for AR in Education. JETDE. 2011;4(1).