名古屋外国語大学論集

第6号

2020年2月

Research Note

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking
Anxiety
Christopher Adam LEAR

Abstract
The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, & Technology
has issued a shift in the focus of English education from a test-focused grammar
pedagogy to a four-skill communicative one by 2020, introducing new challenges for both teachers and students. One of those challenges is the increase in
L2 speaking anxiety which students are experiencing in class. Public speaking
anxiety and L2 speaking anxiety can both affect student L2 performance. Several
anxiety-reducing methods exist but may not be appropriate for the language
classroom.
This paper puts forward the argument that virtual reality exposure therapy(VRET) is a form of anxiety reduction which can be used in the L2 classroom.
VRET has shown to be effective at helping people who suffer from a variety ofpsychological and anxiety related disorders. While its’ application for treating
learners affected by speaking anxieties is still on-going, the current research has
been quite positive. Additionally, implementing VRET into a curriculum also
provides students with more opportunities to use language in authentic settings,
better preparing them for real world use. While some negative physical reactions,147

such as visually induced motion sickness and other forms of visual discomfort,
might happen with a few users, the perception of benefit and increased motivation which have been reported could encourage students to endure the initial
discomfort. In the future, both VR headset and software developers should
prioritize eliminating the discomforts associated with modern VR headsets.

INTRODUCTION
One of the primary roles of a language teacher in the classroom is to identify
learners that may be having difficulties producing language and addressing theneeds of those learners. As primary and secondary school language classes inJapan have shifted from grammar-translation and exam-based grammar towards
active communication as part of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology’s (MEXT) “English Education Reform Plan
Corresponding to Globalization” (MEXT, 2014), an increased necessity forsecond language performance during class has increased the opportunities
for public speaking anxiety (PSA) and L2 speaking anxiety to affect students.
Anxiety has been identified as one reason which causes learners to have a kindof ‘mental block’ when in the second language classroom (Horwitz, Horwitz,& Cope, 1986). Anxiety is defined as “the subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the autonomic
nervous system” (Spielberger, 1983, as cited in Horwitz et al., 1986, p. 125).
Whether with a partner, in a group, or during a presentation, PSA can interrupt
the production of language. It is necessary, however, to recognize the differencesin anxiety people experience.
People who are anxious in only specific situations versus those who are generally anxious are described as having a specific anxiety reaction by psychologists(Horwitz, 2010). One place that specific anxiety reaction can occur is in theforeign or second language classroom. More specifically, Horwitz et al. (1986)
proposed L2 anxiety to be “a distinctive complex of self- perceptions, beliefs,
148

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking Anxiety ■feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising fromthe uniqueness of the language learning process” (p. 128). Thus, anxiety is acausation of the language learning process itself, which can, in turn, impact thelearner’s ability to perform well using their L2.
Horwitz et al. (1986) classified three types of anxiety in the classroom:
Communication Apprehension (CA), Test Anxiety (TA), and Fear of Negative
Evaluation (FNE). CA refers to “a type of shyness characterized by fear of anxiety about communicating with people” (Horwitz et al., 1986, p. 127). Gordon andSarason (1955) described TA as a type of performance anxiety caused by a fearof failure (as cited in Horwitz et al., 1986). The third form of language learning
anxiety, FNE, is defined as an apprehension about others’ evaluations, avoidanceof evaluative situations, and the expectation that others would evaluate oneself
negatively (Watson et al., 1969, as cited in Horwitz et al., 1986).
Anxiety specifically linked to language acquisition has been shown to negatively impact a learner’s ability to learn and perform when using L2. Horwitz
et al. (1986) explained that learners that suffer from any specific anxiety in theclassroom may experience similar psycho-physiological symptoms such as
apprehension, worry, dread, poor concentration, forgetfulness, increased sweat,
and palpitations. Moreover, these learners could also show signs of avoidance
behavior such as missing class and postponing homework. These symptoms havebeen shown to affect the production of speech in terms of grammar forms used,communication strategies employed, and length of compositions (Kleinmann,
1977; Steinberg & Horwitz, 1986).
Researchers have proposed treatments for specific anxiety reaction for
decades. Wolpe (1958, as cited in Heuett & Heuett, 2011) proposed Systemic
Desensitization. Based on the idea that feelings of anxiety and relaxation cannot
occur at the same time, situations are created to replace anxiety responses withthose which people find more relaxing. Skills Training assumes the anxiety
stems from the lack of skill required to give a speech, and thus focuses on149

improving skills related to speech giving (i.e., organization, posture, eye contact,
vocal variety, and gestures) (Ayres & Hopf, 1993, as cited in Heuett & Heuett,2011). Visualization (VIS), based on the idea that perception influences when
one feels anxious, aims to replace negative thoughts with positive thoughts
through imagery (Ayres & Heuett, 1977, as cited in Heuett & Heuett, 2011).
More recently, through technological innovations, Virtual Reality Exposure
Therapy (VRET) has been receiving attention due to its success in aiding in thetreatment of several psychological disorders (e.g., acrophobia, Hodges et al.,
1994; obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), attention deficit disorder (ADD),
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Parkinson’s disease via augmented
reality, and Internet-mediated visualization therapy in behavior therapy (North,
North & Cole, 1996, as cited in Heuett & Heuett, 2011). Therefore, with sucha wide range of applications, the possibility for VRET to reduce anxiety in theclassroom must also be considered.

VIRTUAL REALITY
It is important to first understand what Virtual Reality (VR) is and how it
compares with other forms of media and interactive computer graphics displays.
VR is defined as “an immersive computer-enabled technology that replicates anenvironment and allows a simulation of the participant to be present and interact
in that environment” (Lloyd, Rogerson, & Stead, 2017, p. 222). Computers havebeen able to display the basics of VR since the early 70s – images generated
by a computer and sent to a display system to provide sensory information to
the participant whose position and orientation are tracked in order to update theimages accordingly. The type of VR similar to what is on the market today only
started to appear in the 1980s, but was not commercially available until the early90s. Within the realm of VR devices, the method and level of immersion also
differentiate. For example, the Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE)
is described as a “Virtual Reality Theater”, in which images are displayed on
150

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking Anxiety ■the wall while the participant looks at them with purpose-built tracked glasses(Cruz-Neira, Sandin, & DeFanti, 1993). Three-dimensional (3D) environments
which are displayed with a monitor or projected have also been described as
VR, however, for the purpose of this study, only VR which includes the use ofa head-mounted display (HMD) is considered.
An HMD is a device worn on the participant’s head, isolating their visionfrom the real world so that each eye can only see one of two displays separated
from the other. These displays show a stereo “image [which] is computed andrendered separately with correct perspective from the position of each eye withrespect to a mathematical description of a 3D virtual scene” (Freeman, Reeve,
Robinson, Ehlers, Clark, Spanlang, & Slater, 2017, p. 2). In order to immerse
the participant, the HMD position and orientation are continuously tracked sothat the images correspond to the participant’s head gaze direction. Additionally,
the images, or frames, are updated at a very high rate – no less than 60 frames
per second (FPS) if possible. This immerses the participant in a fully rendered
3D environment.
The goal of any successful VR system should be immersion of the participant,which is achieved through the perception of natural movement. The primarydifferences between VR and traditional multimedia systems is the sense ofpresence in conjunction with devices used to interact with the environment (Held& Durlach, 1992; Bryson, 1992; Sheridan, 1992). Hodges et al. (1995) definespresence as “the sense of being physically present in a computer generated or
remote environment” (p. 9). Presence is the illusion of being in a place renderedby VR (Freeman, Reeve, Robinson, Ehlers, Clark, Spanlang, & Slater, 2017).
It is this sense of presence that gives VR its defining quality (Loomis, 1992;
Naiman, 1992; Sheridan, 1992; Zeltzer, 1992). In their taxonomy of sense ofpresence, they identify fidelity and extent of sensory information, consequencesof participant’s actions, and gestalt of the participant as the three primary determinates. Slater (2004) revises this into two concepts: place illusion (PI) and151

plausibility illusion (Psi).
Drawn from the active vision paradigm, PI requires the participant to experience the VR environment through sensorimotor contingencies (Noë, 2004, as
cited in Freeman et al., 2017). The active vision paradigm suggests that “weperceive through using our whole body, via a set of implicit rules involving headturning, leaning, reaching, looking around and so on” (Freeman et al., 2017, p.
2). PI showcases what VR technology is capable of. Current HMD systems canmatch the movement of the participant’s head, therefore ‘fooling’ their brain into
believing the virtual surroundings are real. Psi describes the ‘believability’ ofthe virtual world (Noë, 2004, as cited in Freeman et al., 2017). The real world is
not static. The air moves around the room, noises from outside can be heard, andpeople can be seen moving about their day. While these may seem unimportant,when similar models are added to a virtual world, they can make it feel more‘alive’, better connecting the participant to the VR environment. Moreover, theworld must also react to the participant and their actions. For example, if there
are virtual characters present in the simulation, they should appropriately react
to what the participant is doing. Psi better reflects the complexities within the
VR environmental software itself.
Improvements in computer components have allowed modern VR devices(i.e., headset displays, hand controllers, sensors) to make significant improvements in the realm of PI. Current commercially available computers are significantly faster than those available in 1991 (Galouchko, 2012). Additionally, 3D
accelerated graphics cards, which use their own graphics processing unit (GPU)and memory to display graphics at a higher fidelity and speed and have been
available since 1995, have also seen significant advancements. As a result, VR
display manufacturers have been able to gradually increase the fidelity of theirdisplay outputs over the years. As Table 1 shows, the resolution, field-of-view(FOV), and refresh rate have all increased as computers become more capable.
The high specifications of contemporary VR devices positively correspond to152

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking Anxiety ■Table 1
Optical characteristics of representative head mounted displays.
Representative HMDs

Year

Weight(g)

Hz

FOV (°) horizontal/
vertical/diagonal

Resolution(pi × els)

Virtual Research
Flight Helmet

1991

1670

–

100˚ diagonal

360 × 40

Virtual research V6

1995

821

60

60˚ diagonal

370 × 277

Virtual research V8

1998

820

60

60˚ diagonal

640 × 480

Glasstron PLM-50

1996

–

–

33.75˚ diagonal–

Division PV100

1998

–

–

60˚ × 46.8˚–

ProViewTM x L 50

1998

–

–

35˚ diagonal1024 × 768

Virtual I/O
i-glasssesTM

1995

226

–

30˚ × 23.6˚

263 × 230

Visette 2

2000

–

60

105˚ × 41˚–

EyeTrek FMD-700

2000

105

56–75

28.5˚ × 21.1˚ × 35.5˚

800 × 600

Emagin Z800
3DVisor

2005

226.8

60

20.8˚ diagonal

800 × 600

EMG iTheater BP4L

2005

78

–

23.2˚ × 17.4˚ × 29.0˚

320 × 240

MicroOptical MyVu
MA-0341

2006

70

60

12˚ × 8.8˚ × 14.9˚

320 × 240

Vuzi x iWear AV920

2008

82

60

22.7˚ × 17.6˚ × 28.7˚

640 × 480

Zeiss Cinemizer
1488-603

2008

115

–

20.8˚ × 15.4˚ × 25.9˚

640 × 480

NVIS nVisor S x 111

2010

1300

60

102˚ × 64˚1280 × 1024

Google Glass

2013

–

–

14˚ diagonal

640 × 360

Oculus Rift DK 1

2012

220

60

110˚ horizontal

640 × 800

Oculus Rift DK 2

2014

320

75

100˚ horizontal

960 × 1080

Samsung Gear VR

2015

318

60

96˚

1280 × 1440

Oculus Rift

2016

470

90

90˚ × 110˚

1080 × 1200

HTC Vive

2016

555

90

110˚

1080 × 1200

HTC Vive Pro

2018

470

90

110˚

1440 × 1600

Oculus Quest

2019

571

72

90˚ × 110˚

1440 × 1600

Note. Adapted from “The Visual Effects Associated with Head-Mounted
Displays”, by J. Yuan, B. Mansouri, J. H. Pettey, S. F. Ahmed, & S. K. Khaderi,
2018, International Journal of Ophthalmology and Clinical Research, 5, 2. 2018
by “Yuan J., et al.”.
increased presence for participants. Refresh rates of under 60 hz in combination
with FPS below 60 have been reported to induce feelings of motion sickness
and nausea (Hunt, 2016), making the experience unbearable for the participant153in many cases (Yuan et al., 2018). Additionally, several studies have shownthat FOV impacts a participant’s sense of presence (Seay, Krum, Hodges,& Ribarsky, 2001, as cited in Fernandes & Feiner, 2016; Youngblut, 2006;
Cummings & Bailenson, 2015). Patterson, Winterbottom, & Pierce (2006) suggested 60 degrees FOV as the minimum requirement to attain a complete sense of
immersion. Moreover, increased FPS, decreased end-to-end latency, and haptic
feedback also all contribute to presence (Meehan, Razzaque, Insko, Whitton,& Brooks, 2005). Modern day VR headsets can display higher resolutions at
higher refresh rates and FPS in combination with a larger FOV. It is throughthese points that current VR headsets have improved both fidelity and extent
of sensory information, thereby increasing the overall PI, and, consequently,
presence in the participant.

VR AND EXPOSURE THERAPYIn terms of application for treating anxiety, exposure treatment has been
one of the most common methods (Freeman, et. al, 2017). Exposure therapy isdefined as “the process of helping a patient approach and engage with anxietyprovoking stimuli that objectively pose no more than everyday risk without theuse of anxiety-reduction ‘coping’ skills” (Abramowitz, Deacon, & Whiteside,
2019, p. 4). VRET, one of the many types of exposure therapy, has become more
prominent in recent literature. Research includes the comparison of VRET to invivo (Kampmann, Emmelkamp, Hartanto, Brinkman, Zijlstra, & Morina, 2016),
and VRET in combination with cognitive behavioral therapy (VRCBT) versus
traditional CBT (Bouchard, Dumoulin, Robillard, Guitard, Klinger, Forget,
Loranger, & Roucaut, 2017).
While VRET has shown to be effective with social anxiety, there have also
been several studies on VRET for public speaking anxiety (Ayres & Heuett,
1993; Heuett & Heuett, 2011; Wallach, Safir, & Bar-Zvi, 2009). Wallach, et al.
(2009) highlighted the drawbacks of both natural setting (in-vivo) and imagina154

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking Anxiety ■tion (in-vitro) exposure components of CBT. In-vivo tends to be more costly,
time-consuming, difficult to manage external circumstances, and have possible
issues with privacy. In-vitro therapy can be problematic for participants who
cannot imagine things clearly or who flood themselves with images or avoid
imaging the situation altogether. Therefore, VRET becomes a desirable alternative due to its ability to mitigate the drawbacks of both in-vivo and in-vitro
therapy. Additionally, Wallach et al. (2009) reported that VRCBT was more
effective in treating public speaking anxiety than waiting-list, and as effective
as CBT plus imagery exposure.
Heuett and Heuett (2011) tested the efficacy of VRET on trait CA (Levine, &McCroskey, 1990), state CA (Speilberger, Gorsuch, Lushenes, Vaggs, & Jacobs,
1983), Willingness to Talk (WTC) (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988), and SelfPerceived Communication Competence (SPCC) (McCroskey & McCroskey,1988) in comparison to visualization treatment (Ayres & Heuett, 1993, as citedin Heuett & Heuett, 2011). Their results report that VRET showed a significant
decrease in both trait and state CA, and a significant increase in WTC and SPCC.
While trait CA, state CA, and WTC showed a positive improvement comparedto VIS treatment, SPSS showed significant improvement with VIS more so than
VRET. Even so, improvement of all four variables still indicated significancemeaning that VRET has the potential to reduce public speaking anxiety.

STUDENT RESPONSES
Since the early 1990s, VR efficacy in the classroom has been a highly discussed
topic. While the usefulness and effectiveness of VR technology as an educational
tool is important, learner reactions to the technology also affects its viability
in the classroom. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the literature on learnerperceptions and attitudes towards using VR technology as an educational tool.
Studies on learner perceptions have given insight on the potential of VR anddealing with its drawbacks. Learner perceptions are critical to the success of155

VR in the classroom (Davis, 1989; Taylor & Todd, 1995; Nair, 2012). Learners
who hold a perceived usefulness for VR as a language learning tool have morepositive attitudes towards the technology, leading them to willingly use it (Majid,Ismail, Kassim, Kassim, & Bakar, 2018). Majid et al. also recommended thatlearners be told the benefits of VR so that, in the case of initial discomfort,
learners might choose to continue with VR due to the perceived advantages.
Therefore, by educating the learner about VR prior to use, the teacher might beable to help learners overcome any initial negative experiences with the technology or with their own anxiety.
Motivation is another factor on which VR can have a large impact. Several
studies have shown the immersive quality, novelty, and interaction VR offers all
have positive effects on improving learners’ motivation (Bricken, 1999; Huang,
Rauch, & Liaw, 2010; Limniou et al., 2008; Sims, 2007). Roussos, Johnson,
Moher, Leigh, Vasilakis, and Barnes (1999) observed increased retention ofsymbolic information and more interest in a VR class due to immersion incomparison to a non-immersive class. Therefore, it is possible that through its
positive impact on motivation, VR has the potential to help students who struggle
with public speaking activities.
VRET also helps prepare users for the target activity. Since VR allows theuser to rehearse speaking in virtual environments, practice which is typically
impossible to do during class (e.g., speaking in front of a large audience, speaking at a location outside of the classroom) becomes an option. Students rarely
can practice a speech in front of a large audience beforehand. Using VR, students
can get the necessary experience presenting in front of a large group to help build
their confidence and comfort level, which in turn encourages speaking (Mak,2011). This suggests that students who do not suffer from PSA can still benefit
from using the headsets in class, as it gives them a chance to practice. Therefore,
while reducing anxiety might be a priority for a teacher who implements VR,
there are secondary benefits as well.
156

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking Anxiety ■IMPLEMENTATION
Bringing VR to the classroom has its own set of challenges. However, within
the past five years, innovations in HMD technology have reduced most of the
difficulties that previously prevented the possibility of a wider adoption of
HMD classroom use. With well-known tech companies like Google, Facebook,Samsung, and Valve investing heavily on HMD development combined withdisplay technologies becoming smaller, higher resolution, and lower cost, toresulting commercially available products have made VR much more accessible
than its predecessors. Thus, with a now widely accessible platform, software
companies have also been focusing more on VR-specific applications. This hascaused an influx in higher spec HMDs and applications, leading to a decreasein cost to the user.

Standalone units
For most of their existence, VR devices have not been practical for classroomuse. HMDs required a computer to render and generate the images necessary
for the participant to see. Since the computer was not in the HMD units, theyrequired a connection to a nearby computer, typically via wire, restricting thearea of use and portability. While this may not impede home use or use in adesignated room like a computer lab, the bulkiness of these systems made them
unfeasible for the classroom. However, with standalone units (e.g., mobile
device mounts and all-in-one) being commercially available, methods of how toeffectively implement VR at home and in the classroom are becoming more ofa reality. Compared to traditional HMDs, these standalone units offer increased
portability, reduced classroom interruption, and do so at a greatly reduced cost.
One of the primary benefits of standalone units, specifically mobile device
mounts like Google Cardboard, is increasing the opportunity for practice. Dueto its small size, students can easily store the HMD in their bag or suitcase.
Without the need of cables or a bulky computer to display the VR images,
157

users can transport and use the HMD practically anywhere. This shows that any
teacher intending to use VR doesn’t have to restrict it to classroom use only,
and that the learner has opportunities outside of the classroom to practice withthe technology.
Historically, VR devices have been quite expensive, priced at more thanthousands of yen per unit. However, with Google Cardboard, the cost of a single
headset can be as low as a few dollars in the case of the user already having asmartphone. It has been reported that Japan has a mobile phone penetration rateof 96.6 percent for people over the age of 14 (“Japan Demographics Profile”,
2018; “Number of…”, 2016). Of the 106.8 million mobile phones in Japan,
70.09 million are smartphones, a penetration rate of 65.6 percent (“Sumā̄tofon noriyōsha…”, 2019). A recent study (“Kodomo no”, 2017), found that more thanapproximately 91.5 percent of Japanese high school students own a smartphone.
With such a high percentage of smartphone ownership among Japanese highschool students, it is estimated that university students also see similar rates.
Therefore, the implementation of Google Cardboard at a Japanese university
language classroom would be a rather inexpensive process.

SoftwareRecently, several companies have released public speaking practice applications for HMD devices. VirtualSpeech VR, by the company Virtual Speech, isa free application for iOS, Android, the Samsung Gear, and Oculus Go. As seenin Figure 1, the application gives the user the opportunity to experience public
speaking in an authentic virtual setting by exposing the user to a life-like virtual
audience and venue. The locations used in the various software generally mirror
real world situations, such as, but not limited to, a classroom, a conference room,a job interview, a press conference, and an office presentation, giving the usera chance to practice in a virtual environment that could be quite similar to theactual experience. The user can also import their presentation slides which will
158

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking Anxiety ■Figure 1. Presentation hall virtual environment taken by Virtual Speech fromthe application Virtual Speech VR, Virtual Speech, 2019. https://virtualspeech.
com/productthen be displayed in the virtual environment and can be manipulated to change
the displayed slide within the application, giving a full presentation experience.
The application mostly follows the Skills Training method, in addition to VRET,
to help reduce public speaking anxiety by providing the user with numerous inapp videos which introduce effective public speaking skills. In addition to this,the application features a paid version which offers additional training videos,
locations, and, as shown in Figure 2, a speech analyzer which tracks head movement, voice control, and tempo. After the speech, it will tell the user how mucheye control they gave the audience, words per minute, and hesitations. This kindof information could be useful in building confidence in the user, further increasing their motivation. While lacking in certain features, the free version does stillallow for VRET-based PSA treatment, making it a low-cost tool for teachers.
Commercial availability of inexpensive, portable HMD devices in combination with recent software developer interest has helped reduce the technicaland financial challenges of classroom implementation. This will hopefully
encourage educators and researchers to more widely pursue the use of HMDs
in reducing PSA for L2 learners, hopefully leading to a deeper understand and159

Figure 2. Speech analyzer feedback taken by Virtual Speech from theapplication Virtual Speech VR, Virtual Speech, 2019. https://virtualspeech.
com/productclear framework on HMD implementation. Affordable VR in the L2 classroom
is still relatively new, but the potential for aiding students suffering from L2
anxiety demands further investigation.

CURRENT VR DRAWBACKSVR technology is not without its drawbacks. While companies are continuously improving HMD features and the software that they require, there is stillmuch that needs to be done to create safe, comfortable, immersive headsets. Any
educator planning on exploring this technology in their classes should understandthe limitations of and risks involving HMDs. Some of the most commonly
discussed complaints include visually induced motion sickness (VIMS), visual
discomfort, and software concerns.
One common symptom caused by HMDs throughout their development
has been VIMS. Keshavarz (2016, p. 148) defines VIMS as “a specific formof traditional motion sickness and can occur in users of Virtual Environments(VEs), such as in driving or flight simulators or during video games.” The maindifference between VIMS and traditional motion sickness is that VIMS is a
160

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking Anxiety ■physical reaction to visual stimulation during limited or absence of physicalmovement. It occurs when there is a mismatch between the sensory input andwhat the brain expects to experience (e.g., conflicting position and movementcues) (Kennedy, Drexler, & Kennedy, 2010; Ukai, & Kibe, 2003). This is known
as a visual-vestibular mismatch, causing various symptoms including nausea,
stomach discomfort, disorientation, postural instability, and visual discomfort(Keshavarz, 2016; Yuan et al., 2018). Errors with the position-tracking sensors
which cause a time-lag between the real-world movements and the virtualavatar can also lead to VIMS. Another cause of VIMS is low resolution, as
looking at unclear images can be uncomfortable for many people. High FOV,
while improving presence, does have the drawback of increasing the chance of
VIMS (Becker & Ngo, 2016). The optical design of the HMD itself might beincompatible with some users, leading to further visual discomfort or fatigue.
Table 2 further explains conditions which may further exacerbate or minimize
the effects of VIMS. Until HMD designers and VR software developers better
understand the causes of VIMS and how to prevent them completely in theirproducts, it is vital for users to be aware of the steps necessary to reduce VIMS.
Many studies have found that visual discomfort, such as eyestrain, dry eye,tearing, foreign body sensation, feeling of pressure in the eyes, aching aroundthe eyes, headache, blurred vision, and difficulty focusing, often occurred withparticipants (Yuan et al., 2018). Researchers have observed that after 10 minutesof HMD use, about 60 percent of users experienced eyestrain, headaches, andnausea (Mon-Williams, Wann, & Rushton, 1993; Howarth & Costello, 1997;
Lampton, Rodriguez, & Cotton, 2000; Kuze & Ukai, 2008). Additionally, visual
discomfort symptoms have been reported to continue after removing the HMD(Yuan et al., 2018). Aaltonen and Pölönen (2009) found that longer usage of
HMDs results in increased eyestrain discomfort. Increased discomfort for theuser leads to decreased immersion, so avoiding extended periods of usage
is necessary. Any discomfort has the potential of interfering with an anxiety
161

Table 2
HMD induced VIMS observations and recommendations.
Observations
1. Lighter HMDs are associated with a decrease in discomfort;
2. Monocular presentations should be avoided, as they are associated with morediscomfort compared to binocular and dichoptic presentations;
3. Exposure to VR in sitting position may decrease VIMS;
4. Complex visual tasks and reading may increase VIMS severity;
5. Rapid vection results in an increase in VIMS symptoms.
Recommendations
1. Manufacturers need to be attentive to system characteristics of the devices
they develop and market;
2. Users should be advised that children, women, users with visual field
defects, postural instability, or history of motion sickness may be especiallyprone to VIMS;
3. Inexperienced users are especially susceptible to developing VIMS, andusers are different in their adaptation to HMDs;
4. Users should be warned to not use HMDs for a long period of time, and to
take frequent breaks;
5. Users should avoid driving or operating heavy machinery after exposure
to VR until VIMS and postural instability resolve.
Note. Adapted from “The Visual Effects Associated with Head-Mounted
Displays”, by J. Yuan, B. Mansouri, J. H. Pettey, S. F. Ahmed, & S. K. Khaderi,
2018, International Journal of Ophthalmology and Clinical Research, 5, 2. 2018
by “Yuan J., et al.”.

reduction treatment session and could completely prevent further sessions if theparticipant has a severe enough experience.
In addition to the physical discomfort that HMDs can cause, there are a few
more caveats to using the technology. Bonner and Reinders (2018) pointed out
several considerations, such as familiarity time, privacy and security, and, in thecase of Google Cardboard, access to capable smartphone devices.
Hardware companies have focused on delivering technology that is designed
to be used and handled by more casual users. VR devices, and the software
162

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking Anxiety ■running inside them, is no different. Although the technology is becoming
more user-friendly, there will still be an initial time investment for the teacher
and students to become familiar with the HMDs and software. The initial timespent showing students how to prepare and wear the HMDs is quite disruptive
to the class. However, once the students become familiar with the technology
and software, using the headsets becomes quite trivial, like asking them to takeout a calculator during a mathematics lesson. Therefore, it is important that theteacher take this into consideration when deciding on whether to use HMDs in
the classroom.
Software can also raise several concerns. In the case of mobile software,students would be expected to download and install the software on their own
personal devices. Data privacy is becoming an ever-increasing issue in themodern age, and many companies rely on obtaining and selling personal user
data as their business model. “Social apps may access and keep an updated
history of the users frequented locations for ad purposes, while more nefarious
apps may request access to the phone’s microphone or camera, or scan a user’s
browser history or access other sensitive content” (Bonner et al., 2018, p. 50).
Understanding which permissions an application might request upon installation,
what data it might need to function, and if that data is kept private must be known
in order to protect students’ privacy.
Consumer VR is still in the early adopter phase. Content companies are stillrelying on their start-up investments to delivery inexpensive software to users,
but as those companies start to focus more on profits, many of the free services
and software they once provided will begin to decrease. It will be important forteachers to keep informed about the software they choose to use and confirm thatthe software or desired features of the free versions remain the same.
Finally, it is important to consider the different socio-economic situations foreach student. Relying on students to use their own smartphone as the display unit
means those who do not have one, or who have one with a cracked screen and163are unable to repair them, would require an alternative method to participate, orrisk being alienated. Some ways to accomplish this would be having classmatesshare with each other or having backup devices on hand in case students need
to use one.
For VRETs to be more applicable as a general tool, advancements in accessibility are required. VIMS and visual discomfort issues are current roadblocks
to the widespread adoption of HMD technology. However, in the future it will
likely be minimized as companies reiterate on the technology. Adding a frameof reference to the scene can help reduce the effect of VIMS (Yuan, et al.,2018). Until then, those choosing to use HMDs should do so with caution to
help minimize these drawbacks.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
While the understanding of how VR technology and software elicit VIMS isincreasing, there are steps that need to be taken to reduce the alienation of those
who are more susceptible to it. Until VIMS and visual discomfort are eliminated,
software should include options for visual anchors which reduce FOV (Becker &Ngo, 2016) (e.g., car dashboard, airplane cockpit). Although a decrease in FOV
reduces presence, it also helps reduce the effects of VIMS. Additionally, software studios should also ensure that their program can consistently run at 60 FPS
or higher. Increased presence through immersion is another challenge, but oneto-one hand tracking is just one of many ways to achieve this (“Introducing…”,
2019). Finally, cost, albeit slowly dropping in price, is still quite prohibitive
for wide adoption. Although great strides have been made in recent years, withstandalone HMDs like the Oculus Quest, Oculus Go, and Samsung Gear becoming available, widespread adoption is still unfeasible for such a niche product.
Mobile device mounts like Google Cardboard are still the most desirable due tothe prevalence of smartphones. HMD technology is developing rapidly, so manyof the concerns today may only be short-term.
164

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking Anxiety ■This paper argues for the implementation of VRET in the L2 classroom,
however, further research is necessary to establish VR as a vital tool for students.
Research on larger, more diverse samples to add to the generalizability of thefindings is needed (Heuett & Heuett, 2011). The psychological makeup differences between PSA for males and females may require different approaches.
While there have been studies on PSA in L2 classrooms (Heuett & Heuett, 2011;
Carinan & Beuno, 2019), studies on PSA and VRET with Japanese university
students are few. Additionally, more comparative studies about the efficacy
of VRET in the classroom versus outside of the classroom (e.g., at home) andwhether having a teacher facilitate VRET versus students doing it on their own
would better illustrate how to implement VR into a curriculum. Cross-culturalcomparative studies are needed to determine the extent cultural background
may also affect the efficacy of VRET, which software developers should also
consider when deciding locations, virtual objects, colors, and character design
to use. Lastly, comparative studies on the efficacy of VRET between mobile
device mounts and standalone units is needed to see if the need to use the more
expensive HMDs exists.

CONCLUSION
By the 2020, Japan is attempting to restructure its approach to English education. By focusing more on the communication aspect of foreign language study,
students in Japan are faced with an ever-growing demand to perform in a foreign
language. As a result, students who show signs of PSA or L2 speaking anxiety
are increasing. These anxieties have shown to impede language production.
To better attend to these students’ needs, it is imperative to implement anxiety
management tools and techniques viable for the classroom.
VRET has shown to be effective in dealing with various anxieties. Specifically,it has been shown to be as successful as other types of anxiety reduction techniques, while having several important advantages over them. In-vivo is not165feasible for the classroom in some situations due to being unable to recreate
certain environments. In-vitro provides little benefit to those who cannot imagine
a situation well. Moreover, while not all students experience PSA or L2 anxiety
to the point of affecting their output, VRET participants still benefit from in-classpractice time, meaning the time of those who do not require the treatment is notwasted during a VRET activity. This allows VRET to supplement any in-classdiscussion activity in which the learner is preparing a speech or presentation.
Additionally, it would be worth studying to see if there are any crossover effectsof VRET and L2 speaking anxiety during pair or small group conversations.
Further advancement of the technology and software is still necessary toincrease user presence and decrease discomfort. As headset displays increase in
resolution, framerate, FOV, and tracking, ways of mitigating visual discomfort
and VIMS should be made a priority. Whether or not all symptoms of VIMS canbe eliminated for all users is still unclear, so software developers should prioritize
including VIMS reduction techniques such as visual anchors. Further researchon in-software methods to reducing VIMS is necessary.
Finally, this study primarily considered the most prominent modern VR headsets (i.e., produced by Google, Facebook, Valve, Sony), with Google Cardboard
being emphasized the most. Therefore, future research should expand to include
modern headsets available to consumers.

References
Abramowitz, J. S., Deacon, B. J., & Whiteside, S. P. H. (2019). Exposure Therapy for Anxiety:Principles and Practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Becker, J., & Ngo, T. (2016). Mitigating Visually-Induced Motion Sickness in Virtual Reality. Retrieved
from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bc2c/8001cb9e32e49e52 34d5868fc0161ca7bc41.pdf
Bonner, E., & Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practicalideas. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 33–53.
Bouchard, S., Dumoulin, S., Robillard, G., Guitard, T., Klinger, E., Forget, H., Loranger, C., &Roucaut, F. X. (2017). Virtual reality compared with in vivo exposure in the treatment of social
anxiety disorder: a three-arm randomized controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry,

166

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking Anxiety ■210(4), 276–283.
Bricken, M. (1991). Virtual reality learning environments: potentials and challenges. Computer
Graphics, 25(3), 178–184.
Bryson, S. (1992). Survey of virtual environment technologies and techniques. In SIGGRAPH, 92, 1–4.
Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D. J., & DeFanti, T. A. (1993). Surround-screen projection-based virtual
reality: the design and implementation of the CAVE. Retrieved from http:// www8.cs.umu.se/
kurser/TDBD13/VT00/extra/p135-cruz-neira.pdf
Cummings, J. J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2015). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effectof immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology, 19(2), 1–38.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Freeman, D., Reeve, S., Robinson, A., Ehlers, A., Clark, D., Spanlang, B., & Slater, M. (2017). Virtual
reality in the assessment, understanding, and treatment of mental health disorders. Psychological
Medicine, 47(14), 2392–2400.
Galouchko, V. (2012). Step by step (30 years). Retrieved from https://3dfmaps.com /CPU/cpu.htm
Held, R. M., & Durlach, N. I. (1992). Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,
1(1), 109–112.
Heuett, B. L., & Heuett, K. B. (2011). Virtual reality therapy: A means of reducing public speaking
anxiety. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(16), 1–6.
Hodges, L., Rothbaum, B., Kooper, R., Opdyke, D., Willford, J., Meyer, T., de Graaff, J. J., Williford,
J. S., & North, M. M. (1994). Presence as the defining factor in a VR application. (Technical
Report GVU-94-06). Georgia Tech University, Graphics, Visualization, and Usability Center.
Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching, 43(2), 154–167.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern
Language Journal, 70(2), 725–732.
Howarth, P. A., & Costello, P. J. (1997). The occurrence of virtual simulation sickness symptoms when
an HMD was used as a personal viewing system. Displays, 18(2), 107–116.
Huang, H.-M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S.-S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3),1171–1182.
Hunt, C. (2016). Tips to avoid motion sickness caused by VR gaming. Retrieved from https://www.
vrheads.com/tips-avoid-motion-sickness-caused-vr-gaming
Introducing hand tracking on oculus quest–Bringing your real hands into VR. (2019). Retrieved fromhttps://www.oculus.com/blog/introducing-hand-tracking-on-oculus-quest-bringing-your-realhands-into-vr/
Japan Demographics Profile. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.indexmundi.com /japan/­demographics_profile.html
Kampmann, I. L., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., Hartanto, D., Brinkman, W. P., Zijlstra, B. J. H., & Morina,
N. (2016). Exposure to virtual social interactions in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: A
randomized controlled trial. Behavior Research and Therapy 77, 147–156.

167

Kershavarz, B. (2016). Exploring behavior methods to reduce visually induced motion sickness invirtual environments. In Lackey, S., & Shumaker, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the HCI International
Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality (pp. 147–155). Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing.
Kodomo no sumātofon shiyō ni kan suru zenkoku chosa [National Survey regarding Children’s
Smartphone Usage]. (2017). Retrieved from http://special.meikogijuku.jp /image/170405_meiko_smartphone.pdf
Kuze, J. & Ukai, K. (2008). Subjective evaluation of visual fatigue caused by motion images. Displays
29(2), 159–166.
Lampton, D. R., Rodriguez, M. E., & Cotton, J. E. (2000). Simulator sickness symptoms during teamtraining in immersive virtual environments. SAGE, 44(5), 530–533.
Levine, T. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Measuring trait apprehension: A test of rival measurement
models of the PRCA-24. Communication Monographs, 57(1), 62–72.
Limniou, M., Roberts, D., & Papadopoulos, N. (2008). Full immersive virtual environment CAVETM
in chemistry education. Computer & Education, 51, 584–593.
Lloyd, A., Rogerson, S. & Stead, G. (2017). Imagining the potential for using virtual reality technologies in language learning. In M. Carrier, R. M. Damerow, & K. M. Bailey (Eds.). Digital language
learning and teaching: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 222–234). New York, NW: Routledge.
Majid, S. N. A., Ismail, R., Kassim, H., Kassim, A., & Bakar, A. H. A. (2018). Students’ perception
in using virtual reality device in English classroom, presented at The 12th Malaysia International
Conference on English Language Teaching (MICELT), Serdang, 2018.
Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System,
39(2), 202–214.
McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self-report as an approach to measuring communicationcompetence. Communication Research Reports, 5(2), 108–113.
Meehan, M., Razzaque, S., Insko, B., Whitton, M., & Brooks, F. P., Jr. (2005). Review of four studies
on the use of physiological reaction as a measure of presence in stressful virtual environments.
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 30(3), 239–258.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2014). English education reform
plan corresponding to globalization. http://www.mext.go.jp /en/news/topics/detail/__icsFiles/
afieldfile/2014/01/23/1343591_1.pdf
Mon-Williams, M., Wann, J. P., & Rushton, S. (1993). Binocular vision in a virtual world: visual
deficits following the wearing of a head-mounted display. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics,
13(3), 387–391.
Naiman, A. (1992). Presence, and other gifts. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,
1(1), 145–148.
Nair, I. (2012). Using technology acceptance model to assess teachers’ attitude towards use oftechnology as teaching tool: A SEM approach. International Journal of Computer Applications,42(2), 1–6.
Number of mobile phone users in Japan from 2013 to 2020 (in millions). (2016). Retrieved from https://

168

The Use of Virtual Reality to Reduce L2 Speaking Anxiety ■www.statista.com/statistics/274672/forecast-of-mobile-phone-users-in-japan/
Patterson, R., Winterbottom, M. D., & Pierce, B. J. (2006). Perceptual issues in the use of headmounted visual displays. Hum Factors, 48(3), 555–573.
Seay, A. F., Krum, D. M., Hodges, L., & Ribarsky, W. (2001, March). Simulator sickness and presence
in a high FOV virtual environment. In Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2001, 299–300. IEEE.
Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators andVirtual Environments, 1(1), 120–126.
Sims, E. M. (2007). Reusable, lifelike virtual humans for mentoring and role-playing. Computers &Education, 49(1), 75–92.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for theState-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Sumātofon no riyōsha wa 7,000 mannin wo toppa ~Nı̄rusen 2018 nen no dōkō wo matometa “Digital
Trends 2018” wo kōkai~ [Smartphone users exceed 70 million ~Nielson reveals in their 2018
trend summary “Digital Trends 2018”]. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/jp/ja/press-releases/2019/nielsen-pressrelease-20190521-digital-trends-2018/
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. Quarterly, 19(4),561–570.
Wallach, H. S., Safir, M. P., & Bar-Zvi, M. (2009). Virtual reality cognitive behavior therapy for public
speaking anxiety. Behavior Modification, 33(3), 314–338.
Youngblut, C. (2006). What a decade of experiments reveals about factors that influence the sense ofpresence. (No. IDA-D-3208). Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses.
Yuan, J., Mansouri, B., Pettey, J. H., Ahmed, S. F., & Khaderi, S. K. (2018). The visual effects
associated with head-mounted displays. International Journal of Ophthalmology and ClinicalResearch, 5(2), 1–19.
Zeltzer, D. (1992). Autonomy, interaction and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 1(1), 127–132.

169