Volume 44, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study intends to examine English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ attitudes toward practicing English in Second Life (SL) and to unpack the effects of avatar identities on EFL learners’ sense of self-efficacy and language practices. Nine EFL learners worldwide participated in a task-based course in SL, using avatars to carry out SL-related tasks while interacting with peers and the teacher via voice chat. Qualitative data were triangulated from multiple sources: learner reflective journals, a post-course survey, and semi-structured interviews. Three major themes emerged: (1) the effects of masked identity on learning, (2) the impact of telepresence and copresence on learning, and (3) the perceived attitudes toward avatar affinity. Findings implicate that the avatar form renders masked identities to safeguard learners’ self-efficacy and empower their language practices. It also opens up a research avenue on the impact of avatar identities on language learning and teaching in 3D virtual environments.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alahuhta, P., Nordbäck, E., Sivunen, A., & Surakka, T.
    (2014) Fostering team creativity in virtual worlds. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 7(3), 1–22. 10.4101/jvwr.v7i3.7062
    https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v7i3.7062 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandura, A.
    (2006) Guide to the construction of self-efficacy scales. InF. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol.5, pp.307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Canto, S., de Graaff, R., & Jauregi, K.
    (2014) Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. InM. Gonzalez-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology and tasks: Exploring technology-mediated TBLT (pp.183–212). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 10.1075/tblt.6.07can
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6.07can [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, J. C.
    (2016) The crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in Second Life. Computers & Education, 102, 152–171. 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, J. C., & Kent, S.
    (2020) Task engagement, learner motivation and avatar identities of struggling English language learners in the 3D virtual world. System, 88, 102168. 10.1016/j.system.2019.102168.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102168 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, G. B.
    (2009) These horses can fly! and other lessons from Second Life: The view from virtual hacienda. InR. Oxford & J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net Generation (pp.153–172). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Clarke, J., & Dede, C.
    (2005, April). Making learning meaningful: An exploratory study of using multi-user environments (MUVEs) in middle school science. Paper presentation at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coffman, T., & Klinger, M. B.
    (2007) Utilizing virtual worlds in education: The implications for practice. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 29–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cooke-Plagwitz, J.
    (2008) New directions in CALL: An objective introduction to Second Life. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 547–557. 10.1558/cj.v25i3.547‑557
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v25i3.547-557 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2009) A new language for the Net Generation: Why Second Life works for the Net Generation. InR. Oxford & J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net Generation (pp.173–180). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L.
    (2008) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. 10.4135/9781452230153
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153 [Google Scholar]
  12. Coughlan, T.
    (2014) Enhancing innovation through virtual proximity. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(2), 17–22. 10.22215/timreview/765
    https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/765 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dawley, L., & Dede, C.
    (2014) Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive simulations. InJ. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), The handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp.723–734). New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4614‑3185‑5_58
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_58 [Google Scholar]
  14. Doughty, C. J., & Long, M.
    (2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dede, C.
    (1995) The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in distributed, virtual worlds. Educational Technology, 35(5), 46–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2005) Planning for Neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 1, 7–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2012) Customization in immersive learning environments: Implications for digital teaching platforms. InC. Dede & J. Richards (Eds.), Digital teaching platforms (pp.119–133). New York: Teacher’s College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Deutschmann, M., & Panichi, L.
    (2009) Talking into empty space? Signalling involvement in a virtual language classroom in Second Life. Language Awareness, 18(3/4), 310–328. 10.1080/09658410903197306
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410903197306 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2013) Towards models for designing language learning in virtual worlds. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE), 4(2), 65–84. 10.4018/jvple.2013040104
    https://doi.org/10.4018/jvple.2013040104 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dornyei, Z.
    (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Downey, S., Mohler, J., Morris, J., & Sanchez, R.
    (2012) Learner perceptions and recall of small group discussions within 2D and 3D collaborative environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(8), 1405–1419. 10.14742/ajet.778
    https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.778 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ganem-Gutierrez, G. A.
    (2014) A sociocultural theory approach to the design and evaluation of 3D virtual world tasks. InM. Gonzalez-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology and tasks: Exploring technology-mediated TBLT (pp.213–238). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 10.1075/tblt.6.08gan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6.08gan [Google Scholar]
  23. González-Lloret, M.
    (2015) A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Harvard University
    Harvard University (2016, July14). Retrieved fromslurl.com/secondlife/Berkman/105/74/35
  25. Hobbs, M., Brown, E., & Gordon, M.
    (2006) Using a virtual world for transferable skills in gaming education. Innovation in teaching and learning in information and computer sciences, 5(3), 1–13. 10.11120/ital.2006.05030006
    https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2006.05030006 [Google Scholar]
  26. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J.
    (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1986.tb05256.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnson, N.
    (2006) The educational potential of Second Life.Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Digital Union.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. King, J.
    (2013) Silence in the second language classrooms of Japanese universities. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 325–343. 10.1093/applin/ams043
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams043 [Google Scholar]
  29. Krashen, S. D.
    (1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lave, J., & Wenger, E.
    (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  31. Linden Lab
    Linden Lab (2013, June20). Infographic: 10 years of Second Life [Press release]. Retrieved fromwww.lindenlab.com/releases/infographic-10-years-of-second-life
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Linden Lab
    Linden Lab (2015, November20). Avatar [Second Life Website]. Retrieved fromgo.secondlife.com/landing/avatar/
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mackey, A., & Gass, S.
    (2016) Qualitative research. InSecond language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed., pp.215–237). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mayrath, M., Sanchez, J., Traphagan, T., & Heikes, J.
    (2007) Using Second life in an English course: Designing class activities to address learning objectives. InC. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp.4219–4224). Chesapeake, Va.: AACE.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Merriam, S. B.
    (2009) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation: Revised and expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ortega, L., & González-Lloret, M.
    (2015) Staking out the territory of technology mediated TBLT. InM. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp.59–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tblt.8.03ort
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.03ort [Google Scholar]
  37. Pellas, N.
    (2014) The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of Second Life. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 157–170. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048 [Google Scholar]
  38. Peterson, M.
    (2010a) Learner participation patterns and strategy use in Second Life: An exploratory case study. ReCALL, 22(3), 273–292. 10.1017/S0958344010000169
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344010000169 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2010b) Massively multiplayer online role-playing games as arenas for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 429–439. 10.1080/09588221.2010.520673
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.520673 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2012) EFL learner collaborative interaction in Second Life. ReCALL, 24(01), 20–39. 10.1017/S0958344011000279
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000279 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2016a) The use of massively multiplayer online role-playing games in CALL: An analysis of research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(7), 1181-1194. 10.1080/09588221.2016.1197949
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1197949 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2016b) Virtual worlds and language learning: An analysis of research. InF. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp.308–319). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Prensky, M.
    (2005a) Engage me or enrage me: What today’s learners demand. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 60–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2005b) Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sadler, R.
    (2012) Virtual worlds: An overview and pedagogical examination. Bellaterra journal of teaching and learning language and literature, 5(1), 1–22. 10.5565/rev/jtl3.456
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.456 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sadler, R., & Dooly, M.
    (2013) Language learning in virtual worlds: Research and practice. InH. R. M. Thomas (Ed.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp.159–182). London, UK: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Schroeder, R.
    (2002) Social interaction in virtual environments: key issues, common themes, and a framework for research. InR. Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp.1–18). London, UK: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978‑1‑4471‑0277‑9_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0277-9_1 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wang, C. X., Anstadt, S., Goldman, J., & Mary, L. M.
    (2014) Facilitating group discussions in Second Life. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 139–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Wang, F., & Burton, J. K.
    (2013) Second Life in education: A review of publications from its launch to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 357–371. 10.1111/j.1467‑8535.2012.01334.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01334.x [Google Scholar]
  50. Wenger, E.
    (1998) Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 1–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (2000) Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. 10.1177/135050840072002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M.
    (2000) Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard business review, 78(1), 139–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wigham, C. R., & Chanier, T.
    (2015) Interactions between text chat and audio modalities for L2 communication and feedback in the synthetic world Second Life. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3), 260–283. 10.1080/09588221.2013.851702
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.851702 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error