Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 44:1 (2021) ► pp.65–81

The interplay of avatar identities, self-efficacy, and language practices

ORCID logo | Curtin University

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.

Keywords: Second Life, 3D multi-user virtual environments (3D MUVEs), English as a foreign language (EFL), avatar identity, self-efficacy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The effects of avatar identities in SL on language education
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Setting and participants
    • 3.2Data collection and analysis
      • 3.2.1Task-based design
      • 3.2.2Instruments
      • 3.2.3Data analysis
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1The effects of masked identity on learning
    • 4.2The impact of telepresence and copresence on learning
    • 4.3The perceived attitudes toward avatar affinity
  • 5.Implications and limitations
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 29 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.19032.che
References
Alahuhta, P., Nordbäck, E., Sivunen, A., & Surakka, T.
(2014) Fostering team creativity in virtual worlds. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 7(3), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A.
(2006) Guide to the construction of self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 51, pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
Canto, S., de Graaff, R., & Jauregi, K.
(2014) Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In M. Gonzalez-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology and tasks: Exploring technology-mediated TBLT (pp. 183–212). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. C.
(2016) The crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in Second Life. Computers & Education, 1021, 152–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. C., & Kent, S.
(2020) Task engagement, learner motivation and avatar identities of struggling English language learners in the 3D virtual world. System, 881, 102168. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Clark, G. B.
(2009) These horses can fly! and other lessons from Second Life: The view from virtual hacienda. In R. 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
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 the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
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
Cooke-Plagwitz, J.
(2008) New directions in CALL: An objective introduction to Second Life. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 547–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) A new language for the Net Generation: Why Second Life works for the Net Generation. In R. 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
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L.
(2008) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coughlan, T.
(2014) Enhancing innovation through virtual proximity. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(2), 17–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawley, L., & Dede, C.
(2014) Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive simulations. In J. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M.
(2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.Google Scholar
Dede, C.
(1995) The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in distributed, virtual worlds. Educational Technology, 35(5), 46–52.Google Scholar
(2005) Planning for Neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 11, 7–12.Google Scholar
(2012) Customization in immersive learning environments: Implications for digital teaching platforms. In C. Dede & J. Richards (Eds.), Digital teaching platforms (pp. 119–133). New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Towards models for designing language learning in virtual worlds. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE), 4(2), 65–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dornyei, Z.
(2007) Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ganem-Gutierrez, G. A.
(2014) A sociocultural theory approach to the design and evaluation of 3D virtual world tasks. In M. Gonzalez-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology and tasks: Exploring technology-mediated TBLT (pp. 213–238). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M.
(2015) A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Harvard University
(2016, July 14). Retrieved from [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J.
(1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N.
(2006) The educational potential of Second Life. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Digital Union.Google Scholar
King, J.
(2013) Silence in the second language classrooms of Japanese universities. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 325–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D.
(1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E.
(1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linden Lab
(2013, June 20). Infographic: 10 years of Second Life [Press release]. Retrieved from [URL]
(2015, November 20). Avatar [Second Life Website]. Retrieved from [URL]
Mackey, A., & Gass, S.
(2016) Qualitative research. In Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed., pp. 215–237). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mayrath, M., Sanchez, J., Traphagan, T., & Heikes, J.
(2007) Using Second life in an English course: Designing class activities to address learning objectives. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 4219–4224). Chesapeake, Va.: AACE.Google Scholar
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
Ortega, L., & González-Lloret, M.
(2015) Staking out the territory of technology mediated TBLT. In M. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 351, 157–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M.
(2010a) Learner participation patterns and strategy use in Second Life: An exploratory case study. ReCALL, 22(3), 273–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b) Massively multiplayer online role-playing games as arenas for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 429–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) EFL learner collaborative interaction in Second Life. ReCALL, 24(01), 20–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016a) The use of massively multiplayer online role-playing games in CALL: An analysis of research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(7), 1181-1194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Virtual worlds and language learning: An analysis of research. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 308–319). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Prensky, M.
(2005a) Engage me or enrage me: What today’s learners demand. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 60–65.Google Scholar
(2005b) Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8–13.Google Scholar
Sadler, R.
(2012) Virtual worlds: An overview and pedagogical examination. Bellaterra journal of teaching and learning language and literature, 5(1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadler, R., & Dooly, M.
(2013) Language learning in virtual worlds: Research and practice. In H. R. M. Thomas (Ed.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 159–182). London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Schroeder, R.
(2002) Social interaction in virtual environments: key issues, common themes, and a framework for research. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 1–18). London, UK: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E.
(1998) Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 1–8.Google Scholar
(2000) Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M.
(2000) Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard business review, 78(1), 139–146.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Dobinson, Toni
2022. Intimacy in online classrooms. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.