Study Abroad in Virtual Reality: A Comparative EFL Study in Japan using the Language Contact Profile

Study Abroad in Virtual Reality: A Comparative EFL Study in Japan using the Language Contact Profile | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Study Abroad in Virtual Reality: A Comparative EFL Study in Japan using the Language Contact Profile Robert Anthony Olexa, David Taquet This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6157486/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Studying abroad (SA) is widely considered one of the most effective ways for students to learn English as a foreign language (EFL). However, research examining the effectiveness of SA has shown mixed results, making it difficult to determine whether the costs justify the linguistic benefits. Furthermore, despite the known benefits for learners, SA programs frequently pose exclusivity issues related to cost, cultural adaptation, and institutional limitations, making them inaccessible to many students. In response, collaborative online international learning (COIL) and virtual exchanges have been proposed as alternatives to traditional SA programs. Among the various options, virtual reality (VR) can simulate natural environments and provide learners with the experience of “presence,” where learners feel physically immersed in a space as if they were actually there. Research comparing virtual and in-person exchanges is limited, particularly regarding students’ exposure to the target language. This case study compares three groups of learners (n = 14) who participated in SA exchanges in Belgium, Singapore, and VR using MetaQuest headsets. Students were given language contact profile (LCP) pretests, made weekly reports using the LCP, and completed an LCP posttest following each exchange. The findings revealed significant differences among the SA groups in terms of exposure to formal and informal language settings and variance in their target language use. The results showed that VR can be a viable, cost-effective alternative to traditional in-person exchange programs. In addition, the findings point to areas where virtual experiences could be further developed to better support learners. Virtual reality (VR) Study abroad Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Language Contact Profile (LCP) English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Figures Figure 1 INTRODUCTION Whereas English as a Second Language (ESL) learners may encounter English in authentic situations in their daily lives, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, such as those in Japan and South Korea, have limited exposure to English outside the classroom. Institutional constraints further exacerbate this issue by restricting opportunities for meaningful language use. For example, university classes in Japan typically consist of a 40-student classroom led by a single teacher, meeting for 90-minute sessions over a 15-week semester. Given these constraints, instruction often prioritizes compositional tasks for efficiency, limiting students’ exposure to authentic communication activities. As a result, language practice is confined primarily to structured speaking, listening, reading, or writing exercises. Moreover, these activities are often fragmented, focusing on target vocabulary or prescriptive grammar points disconnected from the extended discourse and culture. On the one hand, maximizing a curriculum for efficient language teaching is a logical way to help students automate language forms and build a base for future use. On the other hand, it creates a pressing need for authentic language exposure, often addressed through study abroad programmes. Informed language teachers may enhance lessons by incorporating authentic sociocultural content from online platforms. However, verifying the accuracy of such content without firsthand experience abroad can be challenging for both learners and instructors. As a result, study abroad (SA) programs often serve as the only opportunity for students to use authentic English in real-life contexts. Unfortunately, these programs are often prohibitively expensive due to weak exchange rates, high airfare costs, and expensive housing. Even when supported by government funding, SA programs remain inaccessible to many people. To address accessibility challenges and democratize SA, universities have increasingly turned to technology, introducing initiatives such as collaborative online international learning (COIL). These virtual spaces allow students to engage in exchanges and practice English with speakers from different cultural backgrounds (Esguerra, Figueroa Jr, Rodriguez, Fukuda, & Anzai, 2024 ). Additionally, the widespread use of smartphones has enabled students to access authentic language learning content through platforms such as YouTube, podcasts, and live chats with native speakers (Chumpavan, Boonyarattanasoontorn, McIver, & Tampanich, 2024 ). While these advancements have expanded access to English language learning, traditional SA programs remain essential for immersive real-world language practice. While the options for both online and in-person SA exchanges are expanding, information on the types of language students are exposed to in formal and informal contexts during these exchanges is still limited. Furthermore, little is known about how exchanges in different countries or platforms vary in terms of linguistic and cultural impact. This study uses the Language Contact Profile (LCP) developed by Freed, Dewey, and Segalowitz (2004) to compare three exchange programs. Fourteen student participants completed pre- and post-LCP surveys on exchanges in Belgium, Singapore, and virtual ryugaku using immersive HMD headsets. The students also filled out language logs while on exchange. The primary research questions explored in this study are as follows: 1) How do the linguistic and cultural impacts of language exchanges differ between in-person study abroad (SA) programs and virtual reality (VR) environments? and 2) What are the differences in frequency, context, and exposure among students studying English in Belgium, Singapore, and VR? The findings reveal significant differences between the three exchanges. Although the small sample size limits generalizability, the results highlight several potential areas for improving in-person and virtual SA programs. This study underscores the need for further research to optimize SA programs, particularly leveraging technology to create accessible and impactful language learning opportunities. LITERATURE REVIEW History of Study Abroad The European Grand Tour is often cited as a historical precursor to modern study abroad programmes. Popular from the 16th to 19th centuries, the Grand Tour was a capstone experience following formal education, preparing young aristocrats for adult social and professional life (Grenby, 2024 ). While initially an exclusive privilege of the elite, the concept of international education evolved over time. Universities began institutionalizing and supporting SA programs during the period between the two world wars. This formalization enabled broader participation, increasing the number of women being sent abroad to learn a second language and develop intercultural competency (Twombly et al. 2012 ). In Japan, the advent of SA began in the 19th century, during the Meiji period, as part of broader modernization efforts. Early SA programmes focused primarily on sending women abroad to learn Western customs and etiquette. Over time, however, many participants returned with advanced degrees, leading to the establishment of university programs informed by their experience abroad. This shift redirected the focus of later SA programs toward professional development and academic achievement (Sasaki et al., 2020 ). Today, SA programs are commonly offered in higher education institutions worldwide. While the overall number of students who study abroad is relatively small, the global number of students who move abroad for educational purposes is growing. However, Japan has recently seen a decline in student participation in SA programs. Isabelli-Garcia et al. (2018) identified three trends for SA programs. The first involves students choosing to study in countries where their first language (L1) is an official language in the host country, for example, university exchanges between Finland and Sweden or Canada, England, and France. The second trend encompasses exchanges where English serves as the lingua franca or the target language, such as Japanese students studying in England. The third trend pertains to students studying in countries where the primary language is neither English nor their L1. For instance, U.S. students spend a year in Japan learning Japanese. As Isabelli-Garcia (2018) observed, most SA research focuses on programs within the second category. Benefits of Study Abroad Research on the benefits of SA programs for second language acquisition (SLA) has consistently highlighted the benefits of these programs across multiple learning domains. Meta-analyses suggest that SA programs often lead to more significant overall improvements than domestic learning programs (Tseng, Liu, Hsu, & Chu, 2021 ). However, the diverse variables inherent in SA programs, such as duration, cultural context, and type of residence, make outcomes challenging to control and difficult to predict consistently. For instance, case studies comparing SA to classroom learning indicate that the two contexts may foster different language gains. Classroom learners may excel in declarative knowledge, while SA learners are typically expected to achieve gains in oral fluency and sociolinguistic competency. Despite these distinctions, the two contexts are not mutually exclusive. As Dekeyser ( 2010 ) demonstrated, the processes of language learning in SA-abroad environments often mirror those in the classroom. For example, English L1 students studying Spanish in Argentina who could reflect on their declarative L2 grammar knowledge showed more robust post-SA performance gains. Participating in SA programs has been shown to improve oral fluency, sociolinguistic competency, and vocabulary skills while also improving SA (Llanes, Arnó, & Mancho-Barés, 2016 ). However, the effectiveness of SA programs is often contested. Critics argue that the benefits of SA are idealized, citing a lack of established program goals and mixed evidence on linguistic gains (Kubota, 2016 ). For example, Llanes et al. ( 2016 ) investigated students studying in countries where English is a lingua franca. While students demonstrated significant overall language proficiency gains, the pretests did not consistently predict the observed improvements, contrasting slightly with Dekeyser’s ( 2010 ) findings. More recent research has emphasized individual factors, such as motivation, social networks, and face-to-face interactions, on language gains during SA. For example, Japanese students studying in the UK improved (or did not improve) their pragmatic competence, attributing these interrelated factors (Halenko & Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2024 ). Understanding such variances between SA contexts is crucial for optimizing program design and implementation and ensuring that learners’ needs are effectively met. Virtual and In-Person Exchanges Advancements in technology have significantly reduced barriers for high-input language learners, offering greater opportunities for language exchange. Programs utilizing video conferencing, gaming, and virtual reality (VR) fall under the umbrella of virtual exchanges, providing both synchronous and asynchronous opportunities for learners to practice the target language. While these exchanges increase access and flexibility, stakeholders must understand the key differences between virtual and in-person exchanges to use them effectively in language learning. Traditional classroom learning often prioritizes compositional tasks, such as grammar practice, focusing on structural accuracy. Arbitrary lexical items are often taught as vocabulary in translation. While these tasks lay a foundation for comprehensible language use, they limit opportunities for authentic communication. Virtual exchanges address this gap by offering learners combinatorality or the ability to create meaning using multimodal resources such as gestures, gaze, intonation, indexicality, and iconicity. This multimodal approach complements classroom learning and expands users’ ability to use real-life language. Goodwin ( 2013 ) introduces “lamination,” further emphasizing how layers of communication reference each other to create meaning. However, the extent to which learners can access these affordances depends on the available hardware and software. The contrast between in-person study abroad and virtual exchanges reveals opportunities and limitations. Virtual technology mediates reality, prompting researchers to consider reframing these environments as “extended reality” (XR) (Skarbez, Smith, & Whitton, 2021 ). While XR technology continues to evolve, the gaps between virtual and in-person exchanges remain significant. Kern, Liddicoat, and Zarate ( 2022 ) highlight critical factors in virtual spaces that are influenced by mediation, including language, culture, genre, spatial and temporal setting, social setting, technical interface, and intersubjectivity. These elements need more consideration in the literature to optimize the potential for virtual exchanges. For example, enabling students from different cultures to interact virtually may not lead to intercultural competency, as the virtual environment functions as a third space with unique mediating factors that require a separate competency to be understood. In-person study abroad provides sensory and spatial experiences that virtual exchanges cannot replicate. The physical environment offers spatial richness, a patina of immersion that contributes to the pragmatic understanding of cultural keywords and discourse. For instance, considering Finnish or Japanese in-person study abroad programmes, experiencing a Löyly in a neighborhood sauna in Turku or waking up to the sound of cicadas in a dormitory in Tokyo contributes to a deeper understanding of language as a lived experience. However, we also know that many students will complete study abroad programs without having these cultural experiences, nor can all students readily connect to the target language’s more extensive cultural and linguistic discourse. These sensory elements, which are absent in virtual spaces, are integral to the structural view of language as a population. While the aspects of in-person exchanges can be replicated where the intent to do so is present, situated language use, where multimodality is central to face-to-face communication and meaning-making, is central to the added value of virtual exchanges (Murgiano, Motamedi, & Vigliocco, 2021 ). Where it is not possible or there is no intent to connect the target language with cultural discourse, the virtual world becomes a third space, and the impacts of that space should be considered similarly to weighing the impact of cultural differences between countries on language acquisition. While virtual exchanges excel in terms of accessibility and flexibility, extended experience in virtual spaces raises awareness of the absence of elements present in embodied experience. This study focuses on the differences between students’ language exposure in short-term exchanges and what we call “virtual ryugaku,” or students who use VR to engage in language exchanges using online VR apps, to further understand the differences between in-person and virtual exchanges. RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS The affordances of VR for embodied experiences have increased exponentially. Modern commercially available head-mounted displays (HMDs) provide users with advanced capabilities, including 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) movement, hand and head tracking, spatial audio, and high-resolution displays with a wide field of vision. These features create immersive environments that stimulate the feeling of physical presence in virtual space. In this study, tertiary students were provided with MetaQuest headsets (both 2 and 3 models) and received practical orientation sessions on their use. Students were introduced to online VR platforms such as BigScreen Beta and VRChat, where they could meet and interact with English speakers in various virtual environments. One example is the EN-JP language exchange (2024) in VRChat, a virtual space designed specifically for language learning. However, students could explore different chat rooms or engage with speakers on other VR apps. Participants were allowed to borrow their headsets for one week to a month. During this time, they were encouraged to spend as much time as they felt comfortable engaging in language exchanges within VR. The flexible approach emphasized autonomous learning in virtual settings. The term virtual ryugaku (留学), meaning “virtual study abroad”, has been used in Japan to describe projects in which students learn horizontally (from peers) rather than vertically (from teachers) (Nishida, 2021 ). Two critical distinctions distinguish this study from previous virtual ryugaku programs: Use of HMDs for Immersive VR : Unlike traditional online learning platforms, HMDs allow users to utilize gestures and interact in 3D virtual environments, enhancing their sense of presence and immersion. Diverse interaction opportunities : While many virtual ryugaku programs involve structured exchanges between students of similar age groups, this study gave participants access to open-world environments. Here, they could converse with speakers of varying abilities, ages, and backgrounds, mirroring the diverse encounters expected of typical in-person study abroad experiences. This approach aligns with Swain’s concept of SA learners as “street learners” who negotiate meaning in often forced spontaneous exchanges (as cited in Dewey, 2017 , p. 50). In this study, participants were similarly pushed to engage in spontaneous, unscripted conversations in VR, with the primary connecting factor being access to a VR headset or communication platform. To analyze the similarities and differences between in-person and VR study abroad experiences, we employed the Language Contact Profile (LCP) as a key assessment tool. This comparison shows how language exposure in VR-based exchanges replicates or diverges from traditional SA programs. Participant Information After the college’s bioethical research committee approved the study, volunteer students were recruited for the experiment. Students were informed of the research goals and signed consent forms, agreed to participate and had the option to withdraw at any time. The participants in the study (n = 14) were all engineering majors at a technical college in Japan. Students are presented with various internship and study abroad options in their third year of study. Thirteen of the students were Japanese nationals, while one student was a full-time exchange student from Malaysia. The group consisted of six female and eight male students, all of whom were similar in age and experience. The median age was 19 years, with 18 and 21 participants being the youngest and oldest, respectively. The students’ median TOEIC score before joining their respective study abroad programs was 527, indicating an average lower-intermediate English competency, equivalent to a B1 level on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). Further information about the Belgium, Singapore, and virtual ryugaku SA programs follows. Belgium Six participants traveled to Belgium for a six-week study abroad experience. The partner universities focused primarily on technology and engineering through applied learning and vocational training. The Japanese students were hosted for a short research program that fit their summer vacation schedule. While regular classes were conducted in the region’s official language (French and Dutch), research guidance and supervision were performed entirely in English by a lead teacher and a supporting local student. The Japanese students were invited to cultural events such as international potlucks and city visits, where they interacted with other international interns in English. However, the universities did not offer any formal language courses. Some lead teachers required students to give short presentations in English on topics related to their research or home country. Housing arrangements varied, impacting language exposure. Five students lived in small, detached apartments shared with another Japanese student, while one lived with a host family of two English-speaking adults in their sixties. Students also reported regular exposure to English with service personnel at the university and in local shops. Singapore Three participants attended a three-week study abroad experience in Singapore. Like in the Belgian programme, the Singapore Polytechnic institution provided a hands-on technical research internship in a laboratory setting. Students received daily support from English-speaking local students and frequent supervision from the lead teacher. All three students stayed in a shared apartment in a residence managed by the university. The program included weekly city visits and social activities, such as karaoke outings with tutors. However, as was the case with Belgium, no language classes were offered. Virtual Ryugaku Five participants engaged in a pilot virtual ryugaku program supported by a national science grant from the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). The program allowed students to practice English through self-directed learning using MetaQuest head-mounted displays (HMDs), including MetaQuest 2, 3, and Pro models. Orientation sessions were conducted during semester breaks to ensure that all interested students could safely use the VR devices. Thirty-minute sessions with intermittent breaks were recommended to prevent fatigue, and students experiencing motion sickness were advised against participation. Students were introduced to various VR applications for language learning. For interactive communication, students were shown how to join online conversation rooms in VRChat (2024) and BigScreen Beta (2021), allowing them to engage in conversations with Japanese and English speakers. The virtual environments allowed students to play games, sing karaoke, or engage in topical discussions with other users. Additionally, students had access to Mondly (2014), an app for functional language training, including role-play scenarios such as hotel check-ins and taxi rides. Participants took their HMDs home from one week to a month and were encouraged to practice English in their free time. Unlike in Belgium and Singapore, in Singapore, the VR program allowed a flexible and autonomous approach to language learning, allowing students to explore a mix of formal and informal language settings. Significant differences were found in the comparisons among the SA groups in terms of exposure to formal and informal language settings and variance in their use of the target language. The Belgium and Singaporean programmes provided structured academic environments with limited informal interaction opportunities. In contrast, the VR program allowed students to engage in structured learning and spontaneous conversation in virtual environments. RESULTS The LCP was submitted digitally, and the quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS software (IBM, Corp., 2021). Considering the small sample size, statistical methods appropriate for nonparametric data were used. Furthermore, the findings should be generalized with caution. The Kruskal‒Wallis test showed no significant differences between participants on any of the pretests. The Mann‒Whitney test was used to analyze the posttest differences, and five key questions were identified that showed significant differences (p < .05) between groups. The relevant questions and data are presented in the stacked bar chart in Fig. 1 . The bar chart represents the days per week students in each program reported speaking or listening to English. A summary of the significant findings is presented in Table 1 . Talking with Service Personnel in English Again, significant differences were found between Belgium and Singapore (p = .026) and between Singapore and VR (p = .008) because interactions with service personnel are expected outside institutional contexts, such as giving direction to a taxi driver or ordering food at a restaurant. Interestingly, students in VR also reported speaking English with service personnel for at least one day or more on average. Since there are no formal service personnel on VR communication platforms, the number likely refers to the time spent using language apps such as Mondly, where students may have spent time single-player roleplaying in restaurant or hotel scenarios to practice their functional English skills. Speaking Japanese to Nonnative Speakers of Japanese Regarding the number of days spent per week speaking in Japanese to nonnative Japanese speakers, a significant difference was observed between the in-person programs and VR: Singapore vs. VR (p = .006). and Belgium vs. VR (p = .011). Although students aimed to improve their English in all three SA contexts, the reports here draw attention to the purpose of each context. In the virtual ryugaku context, students more often encountered nonnative speakers of Japanese who saw the meeting as an opportunity to practice Japanese. In in-person contexts, students were less likely to encounter nonnative Japanese speakers in Belgium than in Singapore. Further consideration should be given to whether this issue is unique to Japanese language speakers or whether there is a difference between different languages. Trying to catch other people’s conversations in English outside of class Again, the significant differences observed between SA programs when trying to catch others’ conversations in English outside of class were observed between VR and in person, Singapore vs. VR (p = .025) and Belgium vs. VR (p = .011). Virtual environments tend to be limited to 3 m × 3 m spaces when mobility is permitted, while students are more likely to engage in conversation while seated or standing in their dorm rooms. While it is possible to navigate an infinite distance in visual scale within virtual space by using controllers, the disconnect between the senses of the body and the visual senses is often noted to be the cause of motion sickness in VR. Therefore, students likely limited themselves to conversation or other spaces where it was unnecessary to move, limiting their ability to overhear other conversations. In person, in much larger spaces such as a restaurant pavilion or while walking down the street to get from one destination to the next, we can imagine that it is much easier for students to overhear conversations or catch words from other speakers. However, it is interesting to note that students in VR reported trying to catch other people’s conversations in English outside of class more frequently than did those in Belgium, highlighting the differences between countries as a factor that contributes to language exposure. The p values highlight the differences in language exposure reported by students experiencing different SA programs. While the analysis reveals only a small part of the students’ overall experience, it provides insight into what programs may best maximize exposure to English in different contexts and further gives students an idea of what to expect before they go on SA for the first time. Table 1 Significant Differences in Language Use across Study Abroad Programs and VR Context Comparison p value (p < .05) Talking with the Instructor in English Belgium vs. Singapore 0.10 Singapore vs. VR 0.010 Belgium vs. VR 0.008 Talking with Classmates in English Belgium vs. Singapore 0.046 Talking with Service Personnel in English Belgium vs. Singapore 0.026 Singapore vs. VR 0.008 Speaking Japanese to Non-Native Speakers Singapore vs. VR 0.006 Belgium vs. VR 0.011 Trying to Catch other People’s Conversations in English Singapore vs. VR 0.025 Belgium vs. VR 0.011 When considering the research questions in the study regarding the different cultural impacts of language exchanges between in-person study abroad (SA) programs and virtual reality (VR) environments, as well as the frequency, context, and exposure to English, the results of the analysis of the student LCP reports highlight the distinct differences between each program, from which several conclusions can be drawn. Linguistic Marketplace First, social settings, especially considering “language as a population,” affect language exposure when studying abroad. What Bourdieu ( 1977 ) called the “linguistic marketplace” refers to the changing value of language use determined by social environments. The difference in the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF) between countries is reflected in the data. Between Singapore and Belgium, students in Belgium reported speaking in English more regularly with service personnel and teachers than with classmates. We may infer that the use of English was related to the relationships and roles of the speakers. Service personnel and teachers may have felt more responsible for communicating with Japanese students using than with their student peers. While ELF is a factor in both countries, English is an official language in Singapore, meaning that formal interactions occur in English. There is also local fluency in Singlish, possibly contributing to the differences between VR, Belgium, and Singapore, especially in “trying to catch the conversations of people’s conversations in English for which students reported having the opportunity to do this most frequently in Singapore. While the social setting has been recognized as a crucial factor to consider for exchange in virtual spaces (Kern et al., 2022 ), the LCP provides little information on the social settings regarding language use. The supplemental language logs provide some feedback on the social setting. One student wrote, On VRChat, there was a Vietnamese person who told me that he would accompany me to practice English every day, so I asked him to be my practice partner. In this case, students used EFL to communicate in VR. However, when considering VR as a third space, more work must be done to understand “language as population” in social settings in VR. This particular student set out to study English and found a conversation partner. However, the results also show that students spent more time speaking in Japanese with nonnative speakers of Japanese in VR, which indicates that the VR spaces in which students engaged, such as the EN-JP Language exchange in VR, more frequently cast them in roles where they could speak Japanese with nonnative speakers. Street learners Second, virtual ryugaku in VR allows students to have a range of language exposures and interactions similar to in-person exchanges. Students who are high-input language learners (Seliger, 1977 ) may seek the SA experience to become “street learners” (Swain as cited in Dewey, 2017 , p. 50) and engage in situations where they can engage in unstructured or spontaneous exchanges. In the language logs, one student wrote the following: I had never had the experience of speaking English with someone other than my teacher for a long time before, so I could learn not only English conversation but also how to communicate with others. The LCP provides little information about the content of face-to-face situated conversations (Murgiano et al., 2021 ) and how the affordances of VR, such as gesture use or interaction with virtual spaces, are utilized to mediate situated language learning. However, students reported the perceived benefit of being able to move around a space and talk to various speakers, highlighting the benefits of VR over virtual exchanges that rely on teleconferencing. As one student noted, I use the World of Japanese and English speakers. I could speak around the world and make friends. I exchanged discord with one. VR is very useful. Students in VR also reported spending at least one day a week or more talking with service personnel in VR. Since there are no service personnel in online VR communication apps, this finding indicates that students likely spend time practicing functional language Mondly with virtual avatars in hospitality settings, such as ordering at a restaurant or checking into a hotel. Future development of environments for virtual ryugaku may consider synthesizing environments where users can interact spontaneously with other users both online and virtually. Constraints of VR The LCP and language logs showed constraints in using VR to replace in-person study abroad. The students reported individual differences in the amount of time they could spend in VR due to pressing commitments and motion sickness. Regarding language immersion, students had more exposure to English (days per week) in the in-person exchanges than in VR. This could also be related to the nature of the study. Students on in-person exchanges are involved for 3 to 6 weeks. For students participating in virtual ryugaku , the requirements were informal, and time was spent voluntarily. One student wrote how they had intended to be more active in VR but had become distracted by the demands of their schoolwork. My excuse is that I didn’t do enough VR activities due to assignments, etc. Sorry. In addition, VR still poses technical difficulties for some students. Even though students who experienced motion sickness or other adverse effects in VR during the orientation session were advised against participating, one student wrote in the logs that they experienced motion sickness from time to time and could only enter VR when they were feeling well, indicating that while they may not have experienced motion sickness during the orientation session, prolonged exposure may have led to them having a negative experience. Students had access to similar conversational experiences as in-person study abroad programs in VR. However, future studies may benefit from controlling and normalizing the time spent in each context to understand the difference in English exposure between programs. While the LCP asked students how much time (hours) they spent on each of these tasks, the differences between SA programs were not significant; therefore, they were excluded from the focus of this study. CONCLUSION The study results showed that VR can simulate parts of in-person study abroad experience regarding language exposure. However, the following constraints were identified: the time students can spend in VR and the technical constraints of software or hardware leading to adverse effects for some students. The results of the LCP reports show that the social setting in VR that determines the value of language use impacts student language exposure. While each SA program has both benefits and drawbacks, the benefit shown for virtual ryugaku was convenience. Students could engage in exchanges similar to those of SA abroad on demand and at their convenience. On the other hand, this resulted in expected less exposure to English than in-person programs. In addition, while students in virtual ryugaku spent the most time per week engaging in conversation on online communication platforms, they also sought out opportunities for formal/notional language, suggesting that VR apps for language learning may be improved by integrating different types of language exposure. While advancements in technology could change the state of VR, the study’s results suggest that VR is currently best as a supplemental tool, either a precursor to in-person SA or an ongoing supplementary tool for language courses. Future studies focusing on long-term virtual ryugaku programs could help clarify the benefits of English learning and language acquisition. The small number of participants in this case study makes the results difficult to generalize. However, as students continue to participate in these programs, yearly replication of this study should help validate and clarify the benefits of these individual programs. Further studies could benefit from implementing a more thorough qualitative analysis and continuing to innovate and improve the LCP to understand how SNS or smartphone use affects SA programs. For example, while students can easily access their smartphones in person at any time, this is not possible while using an HMD. In addition, while this study focused on comparisons between VR using HMD and in-person exchanges, adding a teleconferencing condition (Skype or Zoom) may also help expand the differences between distance virtual ryugaku programs. Additional comparisons, such as screen recordings of VR exchanges or videos of in-person exchanges, would also vastly enrich the data and further help us understand the differences in the benefits for each condition. The study showed that VR has excellent potential for democratizing SA experiences through simulation. As the XR industry continues to improve upon visual realism and come closer to solving issues with bilocation and motion sickness, wexperiments and gaining a better understanding are essee may come closer to a new understanding of the SA experience. While the possibilities are exciting, continuing these ntial to chart the way for the future. Declarations FUNDING The study was supported by a Kiban-C Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)(Grant Number: 21K00778). The funding body had no role in the design of the study; collection analysis, and interpretation of data; or in writing the manuscript. ETHICS APPROVAL This study was approved by the ethics committee of the National Institute of Technology, Hakodate College (KOSEN) as documented in the results of the the NIT bioethics committee available at https://www.hakodate-ct.ac.jp/disclosure/bioethics/令和6年度生命倫理審査結果/. All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standardsd of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. PARTICIPANT CONSENT Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. Participants provided consent for the publication of anonymized data. AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS The example LCP surveys and datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available in the Zonodo repository, accessible via https://zenodo.org/records/14851117. Due to privacy concerns, certain data are not publicly available but can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare that the have no competing interests. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from JSPS that made this study possible. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER Clinical trail number not applicable. References ATi Studios. (2014). Mondly [Mobile application software]. ATi Studios. https://www.mondly.com/ Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847701600601 Bigscreen, Inc. (2024). Bigscreen Beta [Software]. Bigscreen, Inc. https://www.bigscreenvr.com Chumpavan, S., Boonyarattanasoontorn, P., McIver, S., & Tampanich, S. (2024). Using technology to enhance language learning in the digital era. English Scholars Beyond Borders, 10(2), 186-199. https://www.englishscholarsbeyondborders.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Foreword.pdf DeKeyser, R. (2010). Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a study abroad program. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01059.x Dewey, D. P. (2017). Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges. System, 71, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026 Esguerra, J. R., Figueroa Jr, R. B., Rodriguez, F., Fukuda, A., & Anzai, Y. (2024). Collaborative Online International Learning: A Reflexive Thematic Analysis of Narratives from the Metaverse. International Journal in Information Technology in Governance, Education and Business, 6(1), 100-108. https://doi.org/10.32664/ijitgeb.v6i1.140 EN-JP language exchange—Launch instance—VRChat. (2024). Retrieved from https://vrchat.com/home/launch?worldId=wrld_153be667-a86e-4aaf-9eed-921bd568ee9b Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The language contact profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 349-356. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310426209X Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 Grenby, M. O. (2024). Towards a history of children and heritage: Young people, heritage education and the eighteenth-century ‘Grand Tour’. Childhood in the Past, 17(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17585716.2024.1234567 Halenko, N., & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2024). Thrivers and Survivors during Study Abroad: The Individual Cases of Japanese Learners of English. Languages, 9(5), 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9050180 IBM, Corp. (2021). IBM SPSS Statistics for windows (version 27.0) [Computer software]. IBM, Corp. Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics Isabelli-García, C., Bown, J., Plews, J. L., & Dewey, D. P. (2018). Language learning and study abroad. Language Teaching, 51(4), 439-484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481800023X Kern, R., Liddicoat, A. J., & Zarate, G. (2022). Research perspectives on virtual intercultural exchange in language education. In M. O’Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Virtual Exchange for Intercultural Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 1–20). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003024620 Llanes, À., Arnó, E., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2016). Erasmus students using English as a lingua franca: Does study abroad in a non-English-speaking country improve L2 English? The Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1198097 Murgiano, M., Motamedi, Y., & Vigliocco, G. (2021). Situating language in the real world: The role of multimodal iconicity and indexicality. Journal of Cognition, 4(1), 38. doi:10.5334/JOC.113 Kubota, R. (2016). The social imaginary of study abroad: Complexities and contradictions. The Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 347-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.937728 Nishida, S. (2021). Working in Japanese Where You are Right Now: Internship Program at Ca’Foscari University as a Case Study. In Proceedings of the Next Generation Global Workshop (Vol. 14, pp. 1-29). [京都大学アジア研究教育ユニット] Kyoto Daigaku Ajia Kenkyū Kyōiku Yunitto. Sasaki, K., Uchiyama, Y., & Nakagomi, S. (2020). Study abroad and the transnational experience of Japanese women from 1860s–1920s: Four stages of female study abroad, Sumi Miyakawa and Tano Jōdai. Espacio, Tiempo y Educación, 7(2), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.14516/ete.323 Skarbez, R., Smith, M., & Whitton,M. C. (2021). Revisiting Milgram and Kishino’s reality-virtuality continuum. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2, 647997. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.647997 Segalowitz Seliger, H. W. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study of interaction patterns and L2 competence. Language Learning, 27(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00122.x Tseng, W.-T., Liu, Y.-T., Hsu, Y.-T., & Chu, H.-C. (2021). Revisiting the effectiveness of study abroad language programs: A multilevel meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25(1), 136216882098842. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820988423 Twombly, S. B., Salisbury, M. H., Tumanut, S. D., & Klute, P. (2012). Special issue: Study abroad in a new global century--Renewing the promise, refining the purpose. ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(4), 1-152. VRChat Inc. (2024). VRChat [Software]. VRChat Inc. https://www.vrchat.com Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 10 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 08 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 28 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 23 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 14 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 25 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 22 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 22 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 04 Mar, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6157486","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":448745309,"identity":"3bc98f9e-aad9-4203-8505-d3fe32784010","order_by":0,"name":"Robert Anthony Olexa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Institute of Technology, Hakodate College (KOSEN)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Robert","middleName":"Anthony","lastName":"Olexa","suffix":""},{"id":448745310,"identity":"0bc09fbf-db78-400c-b98c-919d61e3be94","order_by":1,"name":"David Taquet","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Institute of Technology, Hakodate College (KOSEN)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"David","middleName":"","lastName":"Taquet","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-04 23:53:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6157486/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6157486/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82137097,"identity":"11b0dea7-cca7-4f5a-9bd9-582de5736328","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 06:16:09","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79978,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSignificant differences in the LCP scores between the groups\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6157486/v1/ddef998297ae9f539d93cfbe.jpg"},{"id":82138879,"identity":"5078f126-f302-4720-a717-dc2555b9b1e9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 06:24:14","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":673151,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6157486/v1/70bdf7fc-49d6-49c1-b5ca-0d160d5f9fc7.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Study Abroad in Virtual Reality: A Comparative EFL Study in Japan using the Language Contact Profile","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eWhereas English as a Second Language (ESL) learners may encounter English in authentic situations in their daily lives, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, such as those in Japan and South Korea, have limited exposure to English outside the classroom. Institutional constraints further exacerbate this issue by restricting opportunities for meaningful language use. For example, university classes in Japan typically consist of a 40-student classroom led by a single teacher, meeting for 90-minute sessions over a 15-week semester. Given these constraints, instruction often prioritizes compositional tasks for efficiency, limiting students\u0026rsquo; exposure to authentic communication activities. As a result, language practice is confined primarily to structured speaking, listening, reading, or writing exercises. Moreover, these activities are often fragmented, focusing on target vocabulary or prescriptive grammar points disconnected from the extended discourse and culture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the one hand, maximizing a curriculum for efficient language teaching is a logical way to help students automate language forms and build a base for future use. On the other hand, it creates a pressing need for authentic language exposure, often addressed through study abroad programmes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformed language teachers may enhance lessons by incorporating authentic sociocultural content from online platforms. However, verifying the accuracy of such content without firsthand experience abroad can be challenging for both learners and instructors. As a result, study abroad (SA) programs often serve as the only opportunity for students to use authentic English in real-life contexts. Unfortunately, these programs are often prohibitively expensive due to weak exchange rates, high airfare costs, and expensive housing. Even when supported by government funding, SA programs remain inaccessible to many people.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address accessibility challenges and democratize SA, universities have increasingly turned to technology, introducing initiatives such as collaborative online international learning (COIL). These virtual spaces allow students to engage in exchanges and practice English with speakers from different cultural backgrounds (Esguerra, Figueroa Jr, Rodriguez, Fukuda, \u0026amp; Anzai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the widespread use of smartphones has enabled students to access authentic language learning content through platforms such as YouTube, podcasts, and live chats with native speakers (Chumpavan, Boonyarattanasoontorn, McIver, \u0026amp; Tampanich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While these advancements have expanded access to English language learning, traditional SA programs remain essential for immersive real-world language practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the options for both online and in-person SA exchanges are expanding, information on the types of language students are exposed to in formal and informal contexts during these exchanges is still limited. Furthermore, little is known about how exchanges in different countries or platforms vary in terms of linguistic and cultural impact. This study uses the Language Contact Profile (LCP) developed by Freed, Dewey, and Segalowitz (2004) to compare three exchange programs. Fourteen student participants completed pre- and post-LCP surveys on exchanges in Belgium, Singapore, and \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e using immersive HMD headsets. The students also filled out language logs while on exchange.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary research questions explored in this study are as follows: 1) How do the linguistic and cultural impacts of language exchanges differ between in-person study abroad (SA) programs and virtual reality (VR) environments? and 2) What are the differences in frequency, context, and exposure among students studying English in Belgium, Singapore, and VR?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings reveal significant differences between the three exchanges. Although the small sample size limits generalizability, the results highlight several potential areas for improving in-person and virtual SA programs. This study underscores the need for further research to optimize SA programs, particularly leveraging technology to create accessible and impactful language learning opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"LITERATURE REVIEW","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHistory of Study Abroad\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe European Grand Tour is often cited as a historical precursor to modern study abroad programmes. Popular from the 16th to 19th centuries, the Grand Tour was a capstone experience following formal education, preparing young aristocrats for adult social and professional life (Grenby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While initially an exclusive privilege of the elite, the concept of international education evolved over time. Universities began institutionalizing and supporting SA programs during the period between the two world wars. This formalization enabled broader participation, increasing the number of women being sent abroad to learn a second language and develop intercultural competency (Twombly et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Japan, the advent of SA began in the 19th century, during the Meiji period, as part of broader modernization efforts. Early SA programmes focused primarily on sending women abroad to learn Western customs and etiquette. Over time, however, many participants returned with advanced degrees, leading to the establishment of university programs informed by their experience abroad. This shift redirected the focus of later SA programs toward professional development and academic achievement (Sasaki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eToday, SA programs are commonly offered in higher education institutions worldwide. While the overall number of students who study abroad is relatively small, the global number of students who move abroad for educational purposes is growing. However, Japan has recently seen a decline in student participation in SA programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIsabelli-Garcia et al. (2018) identified three trends for SA programs. The first involves students choosing to study in countries where their first language (L1) is an official language in the host country, for example, university exchanges between Finland and Sweden or Canada, England, and France. The second trend encompasses exchanges where English serves as the lingua franca or the target language, such as Japanese students studying in England. The third trend pertains to students studying in countries where the primary language is neither English nor their L1. For instance, U.S. students spend a year in Japan learning Japanese. As Isabelli-Garcia (2018) observed, most SA research focuses on programs within the second category.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBenefits of Study Abroad\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch on the benefits of SA programs for second language acquisition (SLA) has consistently highlighted the benefits of these programs across multiple learning domains. Meta-analyses suggest that SA programs often lead to more significant overall improvements than domestic learning programs (Tseng, Liu, Hsu, \u0026amp; Chu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, the diverse variables inherent in SA programs, such as duration, cultural context, and type of residence, make outcomes challenging to control and difficult to predict consistently.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor instance, case studies comparing SA to classroom learning indicate that the two contexts may foster different language gains. Classroom learners may excel in declarative knowledge, while SA learners are typically expected to achieve gains in oral fluency and sociolinguistic competency. Despite these distinctions, the two contexts are not mutually exclusive. As Dekeyser (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated, the processes of language learning in SA-abroad environments often mirror those in the classroom. For example, English L1 students studying Spanish in Argentina who could reflect on their declarative L2 grammar knowledge showed more robust post-SA performance gains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipating in SA programs has been shown to improve oral fluency, sociolinguistic competency, and vocabulary skills while also improving SA (Llanes, Arnó, \u0026amp; Mancho-Barés, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). However, the effectiveness of SA programs is often contested. Critics argue that the benefits of SA are idealized, citing a lack of established program goals and mixed evidence on linguistic gains (Kubota, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Llanes et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) investigated students studying in countries where English is a lingua franca. While students demonstrated significant overall language proficiency gains, the pretests did not consistently predict the observed improvements, contrasting slightly with Dekeyser’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMore recent research has emphasized individual factors, such as motivation, social networks, and face-to-face interactions, on language gains during SA. For example, Japanese students studying in the UK improved (or did not improve) their pragmatic competence, attributing these interrelated factors (Halenko \u0026amp; Economidou-Kogetsidis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Understanding such variances between SA contexts is crucial for optimizing program design and implementation and ensuring that learners’ needs are effectively met.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eVirtual and In-Person Exchanges\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvancements in technology have significantly reduced barriers for high-input language learners, offering greater opportunities for language exchange. Programs utilizing video conferencing, gaming, and virtual reality (VR) fall under the umbrella of virtual exchanges, providing both synchronous and asynchronous opportunities for learners to practice the target language. While these exchanges increase access and flexibility, stakeholders must understand the key differences between virtual and in-person exchanges to use them effectively in language learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional classroom learning often prioritizes compositional tasks, such as grammar practice, focusing on structural accuracy. Arbitrary lexical items are often taught as vocabulary in translation. While these tasks lay a foundation for comprehensible language use, they limit opportunities for authentic communication. Virtual exchanges address this gap by offering learners combinatorality or the ability to create meaning using multimodal resources such as gestures, gaze, intonation, indexicality, and iconicity. This multimodal approach complements classroom learning and expands users’ ability to use real-life language. Goodwin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) introduces “lamination,” further emphasizing how layers of communication reference each other to create meaning. However, the extent to which learners can access these affordances depends on the available hardware and software.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe contrast between in-person study abroad and virtual exchanges reveals opportunities and limitations. Virtual technology mediates reality, prompting researchers to consider reframing these environments as “extended reality” (XR) (Skarbez, Smith, \u0026amp; Whitton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). While XR technology continues to evolve, the gaps between virtual and in-person exchanges remain significant. Kern, Liddicoat, and Zarate (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) highlight critical factors in virtual spaces that are influenced by mediation, including language, culture, genre, spatial and temporal setting, social setting, technical interface, and intersubjectivity. These elements need more consideration in the literature to optimize the potential for virtual exchanges. For example, enabling students from different cultures to interact virtually may not lead to intercultural competency, as the virtual environment functions as a third space with unique mediating factors that require a separate competency to be understood.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn-person study abroad provides sensory and spatial experiences that virtual exchanges cannot replicate. The physical environment offers spatial richness, a patina of immersion that contributes to the pragmatic understanding of cultural keywords and discourse. For instance, considering Finnish or Japanese in-person study abroad programmes, experiencing a Löyly in a neighborhood sauna in Turku or waking up to the sound of cicadas in a dormitory in Tokyo contributes to a deeper understanding of language as a lived experience. However, we also know that many students will complete study abroad programs without having these cultural experiences, nor can all students readily connect to the target language’s more extensive cultural and linguistic discourse. These sensory elements, which are absent in virtual spaces, are integral to the structural view of language as a population. While the aspects of in-person exchanges can be replicated where the intent to do so is present, situated language use, where multimodality is central to face-to-face communication and meaning-making, is central to the added value of virtual exchanges (Murgiano, Motamedi, \u0026amp; Vigliocco, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Where it is not possible or there is no intent to connect the target language with cultural discourse, the virtual world becomes a third space, and the impacts of that space should be considered similarly to weighing the impact of cultural differences between countries on language acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile virtual exchanges excel in terms of accessibility and flexibility, extended experience in virtual spaces raises awareness of the absence of elements present in embodied experience. This study focuses on the differences between students’ language exposure in short-term exchanges and what we call “virtual ryugaku,” or students who use VR to engage in language exchanges using online VR apps, to further understand the differences between in-person and virtual exchanges.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe affordances of VR for embodied experiences have increased exponentially. Modern commercially available head-mounted displays (HMDs) provide users with advanced capabilities, including 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) movement, hand and head tracking, spatial audio, and high-resolution displays with a wide field of vision. These features create immersive environments that stimulate the feeling of physical presence in virtual space.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, tertiary students were provided with MetaQuest headsets (both 2 and 3 models) and received practical orientation sessions on their use. Students were introduced to online VR platforms such as BigScreen Beta and VRChat, where they could meet and interact with English speakers in various virtual environments. One example is the EN-JP language exchange (2024) in VRChat, a virtual space designed specifically for language learning. However, students could explore different chat rooms or engage with speakers on other VR apps.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were allowed to borrow their headsets for one week to a month. During this time, they were encouraged to spend as much time as they felt comfortable engaging in language exchanges within VR. The flexible approach emphasized autonomous learning in virtual settings. The term \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e (留学), meaning “virtual study abroad”, has been used in Japan to describe projects in which students learn horizontally (from peers) rather than vertically (from teachers) (Nishida, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo critical distinctions distinguish this study from previous \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e programs:\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eUse of HMDs for Immersive VR\u003c/b\u003e: Unlike traditional online learning platforms, HMDs allow users to utilize gestures and interact in 3D virtual environments, enhancing their sense of presence and immersion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDiverse interaction opportunities\u003c/b\u003e: While many \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e programs involve structured exchanges between students of similar age groups, this study gave participants access to open-world environments. Here, they could converse with speakers of varying abilities, ages, and backgrounds, mirroring the diverse encounters expected of typical in-person study abroad experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis approach aligns with Swain’s concept of SA learners as “street learners” who negotiate meaning in often forced spontaneous exchanges (as cited in Dewey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, p. 50). In this study, participants were similarly pushed to engage in spontaneous, unscripted conversations in VR, with the primary connecting factor being access to a VR headset or communication platform.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo analyze the similarities and differences between in-person and VR study abroad experiences, we employed the Language Contact Profile (LCP) as a key assessment tool. This comparison shows how language exposure in VR-based exchanges replicates or diverges from traditional SA programs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eParticipant Information\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter the college’s bioethical research committee approved the study, volunteer students were recruited for the experiment. Students were informed of the research goals and signed consent forms, agreed to participate and had the option to withdraw at any time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe participants in the study (n = 14) were all engineering majors at a technical college in Japan. Students are presented with various internship and study abroad options in their third year of study. Thirteen of the students were Japanese nationals, while one student was a full-time exchange student from Malaysia. The group consisted of six female and eight male students, all of whom were similar in age and experience. The median age was 19 years, with 18 and 21 participants being the youngest and oldest, respectively. The students’ median TOEIC score before joining their respective study abroad programs was 527, indicating an average lower-intermediate English competency, equivalent to a B1 level on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther information about the Belgium, Singapore, and \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e SA programs follows.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eBelgium\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eSix participants traveled to Belgium for a six-week study abroad experience. The partner universities focused primarily on technology and engineering through applied learning and vocational training. The Japanese students were hosted for a short research program that fit their summer vacation schedule. While regular classes were conducted in the region’s official language (French and Dutch), research guidance and supervision were performed entirely in English by a lead teacher and a supporting local student.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Japanese students were invited to cultural events such as international potlucks and city visits, where they interacted with other international interns in English. However, the universities did not offer any formal language courses. Some lead teachers required students to give short presentations in English on topics related to their research or home country.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHousing arrangements varied, impacting language exposure. Five students lived in small, detached apartments shared with another Japanese student, while one lived with a host family of two English-speaking adults in their sixties. Students also reported regular exposure to English with service personnel at the university and in local shops.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSingapore\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree participants attended a three-week study abroad experience in Singapore. Like in the Belgian programme, the Singapore Polytechnic institution provided a hands-on technical research internship in a laboratory setting. Students received daily support from English-speaking local students and frequent supervision from the lead teacher.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll three students stayed in a shared apartment in a residence managed by the university. The program included weekly city visits and social activities, such as karaoke outings with tutors. However, as was the case with Belgium, no language classes were offered.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eVirtual Ryugaku\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFive participants engaged in a pilot \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e program supported by a national science grant from the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). The program allowed students to practice English through self-directed learning using MetaQuest head-mounted displays (HMDs), including MetaQuest 2, 3, and Pro models.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrientation sessions were conducted during semester breaks to ensure that all interested students could safely use the VR devices. Thirty-minute sessions with intermittent breaks were recommended to prevent fatigue, and students experiencing motion sickness were advised against participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents were introduced to various VR applications for language learning. For interactive communication, students were shown how to join online conversation rooms in VRChat (2024) and BigScreen Beta (2021), allowing them to engage in conversations with Japanese and English speakers. The virtual environments allowed students to play games, sing karaoke, or engage in topical discussions with other users. Additionally, students had access to Mondly (2014), an app for functional language training, including role-play scenarios such as hotel check-ins and taxi rides.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants took their HMDs home from one week to a month and were encouraged to practice English in their free time. Unlike in Belgium and Singapore, in Singapore, the VR program allowed a flexible and autonomous approach to language learning, allowing students to explore a mix of formal and informal language settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant differences were found in the comparisons among the SA groups in terms of exposure to formal and informal language settings and variance in their use of the target language. The Belgium and Singaporean programmes provided structured academic environments with limited informal interaction opportunities. In contrast, the VR program allowed students to engage in structured learning and spontaneous conversation in virtual environments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe LCP was submitted digitally, and the quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS software (IBM, Corp., 2021). Considering the small sample size, statistical methods appropriate for nonparametric data were used. Furthermore, the findings should be generalized with caution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Kruskal‒Wallis test showed no significant differences between participants on any of the pretests. The Mann‒Whitney test was used to analyze the posttest differences, and five key questions were identified that showed significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05) between groups. The relevant questions and data are presented in the stacked bar chart in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The bar chart represents the days per week students in each program reported speaking or listening to English. A summary of the significant findings is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTalking with Service Personnel in English\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgain, significant differences were found between Belgium and Singapore (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.026) and between Singapore and VR (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.008) because interactions with service personnel are expected outside institutional contexts, such as giving direction to a taxi driver or ordering food at a restaurant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterestingly, students in VR also reported speaking English with service personnel for at least one day or more on average. Since there are no formal service personnel on VR communication platforms, the number likely refers to the time spent using language apps such as Mondly, where students may have spent time single-player roleplaying in restaurant or hotel scenarios to practice their functional English skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSpeaking Japanese to Nonnative Speakers of Japanese\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the number of days spent per week speaking in Japanese to nonnative Japanese speakers, a significant difference was observed between the in-person programs and VR: Singapore vs. VR (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006). and Belgium vs. VR (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.011). Although students aimed to improve their English in all three SA contexts, the reports here draw attention to the purpose of each context. In the \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e context, students more often encountered nonnative speakers of Japanese who saw the meeting as an opportunity to practice Japanese. In in-person contexts, students were less likely to encounter nonnative Japanese speakers in Belgium than in Singapore. Further consideration should be given to whether this issue is unique to Japanese language speakers or whether there is a difference between different languages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTrying to catch other people\u0026rsquo;s conversations in English outside of class\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgain, the significant differences observed between SA programs when trying to catch others\u0026rsquo; conversations in English outside of class were observed between VR and in person, Singapore vs. VR (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.025) and Belgium vs. VR (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.011). Virtual environments tend to be limited to 3 m \u0026times; 3 m spaces when mobility is permitted, while students are more likely to engage in conversation while seated or standing in their dorm rooms. While it is possible to navigate an infinite distance in visual scale within virtual space by using controllers, the disconnect between the senses of the body and the visual senses is often noted to be the cause of motion sickness in VR. Therefore, students likely limited themselves to conversation or other spaces where it was unnecessary to move, limiting their ability to overhear other conversations. In person, in much larger spaces such as a restaurant pavilion or while walking down the street to get from one destination to the next, we can imagine that it is much easier for students to overhear conversations or catch words from other speakers. However, it is interesting to note that students in VR reported trying to catch other people\u0026rsquo;s conversations in English outside of class more frequently than did those in Belgium, highlighting the differences between countries as a factor that contributes to language exposure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe p values highlight the differences in language exposure reported by students experiencing different SA programs. While the analysis reveals only a small part of the students\u0026rsquo; overall experience, it provides insight into what programs may best maximize exposure to English in different contexts and further gives students an idea of what to expect before they go on SA for the first time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSignificant Differences in Language Use across Study Abroad Programs and VR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContext\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep value\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTalking with the Instructor in English\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelgium vs. Singapore\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingapore vs. VR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelgium vs. VR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTalking with\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eClassmates in\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelgium vs. Singapore\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.046\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTalking with Service Personnel in English\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelgium vs. Singapore\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.026\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingapore vs. VR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpeaking Japanese to Non-Native Speakers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingapore vs. VR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelgium vs. VR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrying to Catch other People\u0026rsquo;s Conversations in English\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingapore vs. VR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelgium vs. VR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen considering the research questions in the study regarding the different cultural impacts of language exchanges between in-person study abroad (SA) programs and virtual reality (VR) environments, as well as the frequency, context, and exposure to English, the results of the analysis of the student LCP reports highlight the distinct differences between each program, from which several conclusions can be drawn.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLinguistic Marketplace\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, social settings, especially considering \u0026ldquo;language as a population,\u0026rdquo; affect language exposure when studying abroad. What Bourdieu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e) called the \u0026ldquo;linguistic marketplace\u0026rdquo; refers to the changing value of language use determined by social environments. The difference in the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF) between countries is reflected in the data. Between Singapore and Belgium, students in Belgium reported speaking in English more regularly with service personnel and teachers than with classmates. We may infer that the use of English was related to the relationships and roles of the speakers. Service personnel and teachers may have felt more responsible for communicating with Japanese students using than with their student peers. While ELF is a factor in both countries, English is an official language in Singapore, meaning that formal interactions occur in English. There is also local fluency in Singlish, possibly contributing to the differences between VR, Belgium, and Singapore, especially in \u0026ldquo;trying to catch the conversations of people\u0026rsquo;s conversations in English for which students reported having the opportunity to do this most frequently in Singapore.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the social setting has been recognized as a crucial factor to consider for exchange in virtual spaces (Kern et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the LCP provides little information on the social settings regarding language use. The supplemental language logs provide some feedback on the social setting. One student wrote,\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn VRChat, there was a Vietnamese person who told me that he would accompany me to practice English every day, so I asked him to be my practice partner.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this case, students used EFL to communicate in VR. However, when considering VR as a third space, more work must be done to understand \u0026ldquo;language as population\u0026rdquo; in social settings in VR. This particular student set out to study English and found a conversation partner. However, the results also show that students spent more time speaking in Japanese with nonnative speakers of Japanese in VR, which indicates that the VR spaces in which students engaged, such as the EN-JP Language exchange in VR, more frequently cast them in roles where they could speak Japanese with nonnative speakers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStreet learners\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e in VR allows students to have a range of language exposures and interactions similar to in-person exchanges. Students who are high-input language learners (Seliger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e) may seek the SA experience to become \u0026ldquo;street learners\u0026rdquo; (Swain as cited in Dewey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, p. 50) and engage in situations where they can engage in unstructured or spontaneous exchanges. In the language logs, one student wrote the following:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI had never had the experience of speaking English with someone other than my teacher for a long time before, so I could learn not only English conversation but also how to communicate with others.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe LCP provides little information about the content of face-to-face situated conversations (Murgiano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and how the affordances of VR, such as gesture use or interaction with virtual spaces, are utilized to mediate situated language learning. However, students reported the perceived benefit of being able to move around a space and talk to various speakers, highlighting the benefits of VR over virtual exchanges that rely on teleconferencing. As one student noted,\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI use the World of Japanese and English speakers. I could speak around the world and make friends. I exchanged discord with one. VR is very useful.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents in VR also reported spending at least one day a week or more talking with service personnel in VR. Since there are no service personnel in online VR communication apps, this finding indicates that students likely spend time practicing functional language Mondly with virtual avatars in hospitality settings, such as ordering at a restaurant or checking into a hotel. Future development of environments for \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e may consider synthesizing environments where users can interact spontaneously with other users both online and virtually.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConstraints of VR\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe LCP and language logs showed constraints in using VR to replace in-person study abroad. The students reported individual differences in the amount of time they could spend in VR due to pressing commitments and motion sickness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding language immersion, students had more exposure to English (days per week) in the in-person exchanges than in VR. This could also be related to the nature of the study. Students on in-person exchanges are involved for 3 to 6 weeks. For students participating in \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e, the requirements were informal, and time was spent voluntarily. One student wrote how they had intended to be more active in VR but had become distracted by the demands of their schoolwork.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMy excuse is that I didn\u0026rsquo;t do enough VR activities due to assignments, etc. Sorry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, VR still poses technical difficulties for some students. Even though students who experienced motion sickness or other adverse effects in VR during the orientation session were advised against participating, one student wrote in the logs that they experienced motion sickness from time to time and could only enter VR when they were feeling well, indicating that while they may not have experienced motion sickness during the orientation session, prolonged exposure may have led to them having a negative experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents had access to similar conversational experiences as in-person study abroad programs in VR. However, future studies may benefit from controlling and normalizing the time spent in each context to understand the difference in English exposure between programs. While the LCP asked students how much time (hours) they spent on each of these tasks, the differences between SA programs were not significant; therefore, they were excluded from the focus of this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study results showed that VR can simulate parts of in-person study abroad experience regarding language exposure. However, the following constraints were identified: the time students can spend in VR and the technical constraints of software or hardware leading to adverse effects for some students. The results of the LCP reports show that the social setting in VR that determines the value of language use impacts student language exposure. While each SA program has both benefits and drawbacks, the benefit shown for \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e was convenience. Students could engage in exchanges similar to those of SA abroad on demand and at their convenience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, this resulted in expected less exposure to English than in-person programs. In addition, while students in \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e spent the most time per week engaging in conversation on online communication platforms, they also sought out opportunities for formal/notional language, suggesting that VR apps for language learning may be improved by integrating different types of language exposure. While advancements in technology could change the state of VR, the study\u0026rsquo;s results suggest that VR is currently best as a supplemental tool, either a precursor to in-person SA or an ongoing supplementary tool for language courses. Future studies focusing on long-term virtual ryugaku programs could help clarify the benefits of English learning and language acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe small number of participants in this case study makes the results difficult to generalize. However, as students continue to participate in these programs, yearly replication of this study should help validate and clarify the benefits of these individual programs. Further studies could benefit from implementing a more thorough qualitative analysis and continuing to innovate and improve the LCP to understand how SNS or smartphone use affects SA programs. For example, while students can easily access their smartphones in person at any time, this is not possible while using an HMD. In addition, while this study focused on comparisons between VR using HMD and in-person exchanges, adding a teleconferencing condition (Skype or Zoom) may also help expand the differences between distance \u003cem\u003evirtual ryugaku\u003c/em\u003e programs. Additional comparisons, such as screen recordings of VR exchanges or videos of in-person exchanges, would also vastly enrich the data and further help us understand the differences in the benefits for each condition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study showed that VR has excellent potential for democratizing SA experiences through simulation. As the XR industry continues to improve upon visual realism and come closer to solving issues with bilocation and motion sickness, wexperiments and gaining a better understanding are essee may come closer to a new understanding of the SA experience. While the possibilities are exciting, continuing these ntial to chart the way for the future.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFUNDING\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was supported by a Kiban-C Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)(Grant Number: 21K00778). The funding body had no role in the design of the study; collection analysis, and interpretation of data; or in writing the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eETHICS APPROVAL\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the ethics committee of the National Institute of Technology, Hakodate College (KOSEN) as documented in the results of the the NIT bioethics committee available at https://www.hakodate-ct.ac.jp/disclosure/bioethics/令和6年度生命倫理審査結果/. All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standardsd of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePARTICIPANT CONSENT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. Participants provided consent for the publication of anonymized data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe example LCP surveys and datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available in the Zonodo repository, accessible via https://zenodo.org/records/14851117. Due to privacy concerns, certain data are not publicly available but can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCOMPETING INTERESTS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that the have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from JSPS \u0026nbsp;that made this study possible. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical trail number not applicable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eATi Studios. (2014). Mondly [Mobile application software]. ATi Studios. https://www.mondly.com/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645\u0026ndash;668. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847701600601\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBigscreen, Inc. (2024). Bigscreen Beta [Software]. Bigscreen, Inc. https://www.bigscreenvr.com\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChumpavan, S., Boonyarattanasoontorn, P., McIver, S., \u0026amp; Tampanich, S. (2024). Using technology to enhance language learning in the digital era. English Scholars Beyond Borders, 10(2), 186-199. https://www.englishscholarsbeyondborders.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Foreword.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeKeyser, R. (2010). Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a study abroad program. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 80\u0026ndash;92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01059.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDewey, D. P. (2017). Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges. System, 71, 49\u0026ndash;59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEsguerra, J. R., Figueroa Jr, R. B., Rodriguez, F., Fukuda, A., \u0026amp; Anzai, Y. (2024). Collaborative Online International Learning: A Reflexive Thematic Analysis of Narratives from the Metaverse. International Journal in Information Technology in Governance, Education and Business, 6(1), 100-108. https://doi.org/10.32664/ijitgeb.v6i1.140\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEN-JP language exchange\u0026mdash;Launch instance\u0026mdash;VRChat. (2024). Retrieved from https://vrchat.com/home/launch?worldId=wrld_153be667-a86e-4aaf-9eed-921bd568ee9b\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., \u0026amp; Halter, R. (2004). The language contact profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 349-356. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310426209X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrenby, M. O. (2024). Towards a history of children and heritage: Young people, heritage education and the eighteenth-century \u0026lsquo;Grand Tour\u0026rsquo;. Childhood in the Past, 17(1), 4\u0026ndash;21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17585716.2024.1234567\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHalenko, N., \u0026amp; Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2024). Thrivers and Survivors during Study Abroad: The Individual Cases of Japanese Learners of English. Languages, 9(5), 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9050180\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIBM, Corp. (2021). IBM SPSS Statistics for windows (version 27.0) [Computer software]. IBM, Corp. Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIsabelli-Garc\u0026iacute;a, C., Bown, J., Plews, J. L., \u0026amp; Dewey, D. P. (2018). Language learning and study abroad. Language Teaching, 51(4), 439-484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481800023X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKern, R., Liddicoat, A. J., \u0026amp; Zarate, G. (2022). Research perspectives on virtual intercultural exchange in language education. In M. O\u0026rsquo;Dowd \u0026amp; T. Lewis (Eds.), Virtual Exchange for Intercultural Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 1\u0026ndash;20). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003024620\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLlanes, \u0026Agrave;., Arn\u0026oacute;, E., \u0026amp; Mancho-Bar\u0026eacute;s, G. (2016). Erasmus students using English as a lingua franca: Does study abroad in a non-English-speaking country improve L2 English? The Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 292\u0026ndash;303. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1198097\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurgiano, M., Motamedi, Y., \u0026amp; Vigliocco, G. (2021). Situating language in the real world: The role of multimodal iconicity and indexicality. Journal of Cognition, 4(1), 38. doi:10.5334/JOC.113\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKubota, R. (2016). The social imaginary of study abroad: Complexities and contradictions. The Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 347-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.937728\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNishida, S. (2021). Working in Japanese Where You are Right Now: Internship Program at Ca\u0026rsquo;Foscari University as a Case Study. In Proceedings of the Next Generation Global Workshop (Vol. 14, pp. 1-29). [京都大学アジア研究教育ユニット] Kyoto Daigaku Ajia Kenkyū Kyōiku Yunitto.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSasaki, K., Uchiyama, Y., \u0026amp; Nakagomi, S. (2020). Study abroad and the transnational experience of Japanese women from 1860s\u0026ndash;1920s: Four stages of female study abroad, Sumi Miyakawa and Tano Jōdai. Espacio, Tiempo y Educaci\u0026oacute;n, 7(2), 19\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.14516/ete.323\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkarbez, R., Smith, M., \u0026amp; Whitton,M. C. (2021). Revisiting Milgram and Kishino\u0026rsquo;s reality-virtuality continuum. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2, 647997. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.647997 \u003cbr\u003e Segalowitz\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeliger, H. W. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study of interaction patterns and L2 competence. Language Learning, 27(2), 263\u0026ndash;278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00122.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTseng, W.-T., Liu, Y.-T., Hsu, Y.-T., \u0026amp; Chu, H.-C. (2021). Revisiting the effectiveness of study abroad language programs: A multilevel meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25(1), 136216882098842. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820988423\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTwombly, S. B., Salisbury, M. H., Tumanut, S. D., \u0026amp; Klute, P. (2012). Special issue: Study abroad in a new global century--Renewing the promise, refining the purpose. ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(4), 1-152.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVRChat Inc. (2024). VRChat [Software]. VRChat Inc. https://www.vrchat.com\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Virtual reality (VR), Study abroad, Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Language Contact Profile (LCP), English as a Foreign Language (EFL)","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6157486/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6157486/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eStudying abroad (SA) is widely considered one of the most effective ways for students to learn English as a foreign language (EFL). However, research examining the effectiveness of SA has shown mixed results, making it difficult to determine whether the costs justify the linguistic benefits. Furthermore, despite the known benefits for learners, SA programs frequently pose exclusivity issues related to cost, cultural adaptation, and institutional limitations, making them inaccessible to many students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response, collaborative online international learning (COIL) and virtual exchanges have been proposed as alternatives to traditional SA programs. Among the various options, virtual reality (VR) can simulate natural environments and provide learners with the experience of \u0026ldquo;presence,\u0026rdquo; where learners feel physically immersed in a space as if they were actually there. Research comparing virtual and in-person exchanges is limited, particularly regarding students\u0026rsquo; exposure to the target language.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis case study compares three groups of learners (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14) who participated in SA exchanges in Belgium, Singapore, and VR using MetaQuest headsets. Students were given language contact profile (LCP) pretests, made weekly reports using the LCP, and completed an LCP posttest following each exchange. The findings revealed significant differences among the SA groups in terms of exposure to formal and informal language settings and variance in their target language use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results showed that VR can be a viable, cost-effective alternative to traditional in-person exchange programs. In addition, the findings point to areas where virtual experiences could be further developed to better support learners.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Study Abroad in Virtual Reality: A Comparative EFL Study in Japan using the Language Contact Profile","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-07 06:16:05","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6157486/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-06-10T13:05:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-08T19:07:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"57297584818926677229546079328964080365","date":"2025-06-02T15:03:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-29T01:40:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"122142116719834256247377150842970817752","date":"2025-05-29T01:22:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-23T13:42:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"278897976812171384677955027897005555037","date":"2025-05-17T03:25:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-15T01:24:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"220891429863139049609530399195609131412","date":"2025-05-09T08:51:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"288373316607413977119620006948980042735","date":"2025-05-06T05:33:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-25T11:22:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-04-22T11:13:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-22T11:11:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2025-03-04T23:45:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e481f613-f343-4191-9903-5b023ab59cf8","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-20T05:28:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-07 06:16:05","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6157486","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6157486","identity":"rs-6157486","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}