![3D"Im=](3D"image.002.jpeg")
![3D""](3D"image.=)
&#=
xa0;
Entornos virtu=
ales de aprendizaje para la ense=C3=B1anza del idioma ingl=C3=A9s en la edu=
caci=C3=B3n superior: una revisi=C3=B3n sistem=C3=A1tica
Vi=
rtual learning environments for English language education in higher educat=
ion: a systematic review
=
![](3D"image.003.png")
=
&=
#xa0; | Art=C3=ADculo de Investigaci=C3=B3n Cient=C3=ADfica y Tecnol=C3=B3gica<=
/span> Enviado: Revisado: <=
/p> Aceptado: =
Publicado: DOI: |
| |
C=C3=ADtese: | | | | |
![3D""](3D"image.005.jpeg") ![3D"editorial1.png"](3D"image.004.jpeg")
| | =
CIENCIA DIGITAL, e formaci=C3=B3n de profesionales competentes con visi=C3=B3n h=
uman=C3=ADstica y cr=C3=ADtica que sean capaces de exponer sus resultados i=
nvestigativos y cient=C3=ADficos en la misma medida que se promueva mediant=
e su intervenci=C3=B3n cambios positivos en la sociedad. https://ciencia=
digital.org La rev=
ista es editada por la Editorial Ciencia Digital (Editorial de prestigio re=
gistrada en la C=C3=A1mara Ecuatoriana de Libro con No de Afiliaci=C3=B3n 6=
63) www.celibro.org.ec | | <=
/td> |
![=3D""](3D"image.006.png")
| | Esta revista est=C3=A1 pr=
otegida bajo una licencia Creative Commons Atribuci=C3=B3n-NoComercial-Comp=
artirIgual 4.0 International. Copia de la licencia: https://creativecommons.org/lic=
enses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es | | |
Palabras claves: Entornos virtuales de aprendizaje, ense=C3=B1anza del idioma ingl=C3=
=A9s, educaci=C3=B3n superior, =
EFL, aprendizaje digital. | | Resumen Introducci=
=C3=B3n. Los=
entornos virtuales de aprendizaje (EVA) se convirtieron en una caracter=C3=
=ADstica sumamente prominente de la ense=C3=B1anza del idioma ingl=C3=A9s e=
n la educaci=C3=B3n superior. M=C3=A1s all=C3=A1 del sistema tradicional de=
gesti=C3=B3n del aprendizaje, los EVA ofrecen espacios de aprendizaje m=C3=
=A1s inmersivos, con asistencia m=C3=B3vil, gamificados y con soporte de in=
teligencia artificial. Sin embargo, la evidencia de su contribuci=C3=B3n pe=
dag=C3=B3gica a=C3=BAn se encuentra dispersa en diferentes tradiciones de i=
nvestigaci=C3=B3n y modalidades tecnol=C3=B3gicas. Objetivos. Revisi=C3=B3n sistem=C3=A1tica de estudios emp=C3=ADricos so=
bre la ense=C3=B1anza del idioma ingl=C3=A9s mediada por EVA en la educaci=
=C3=B3n superior, con especial =C3=A9nfasis en las tendencias de publicaci=
=C3=B3n, el aprendizaje de idiomas, los enfoques metodol=C3=B3gicos, los re=
sultados educativos y los desaf=C3=ADos en la implementaci=C3=B3n. <=
span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Metodolog=C3=ADa. Se realiz=C3=B3 una b=C3=BAsqueda sis=
tem=C3=A1tica en Scopus bajo las directrices PRISMA 2020 con la expresi=C3=
=B3n (=E2=80=9Centorno virtual de aprendizaje=E2=80=9D O EVA) Y ingl=C3=A9s=
en t=C3=ADtulos, res=C3=BAmenes y palabras clave. La b=C3=BAsqueda encontr=
=C3=B3 43 registros, de los cuales 21 fueron excluidos en la etapa de selec=
ci=C3=B3n de t=C3=ADtulo y resumen. Se evalu=C3=B3 la elegibilidad de 22 in=
formes en texto completo. Ep=C3=ADlogo. Siguiendo las directrices PRISMA 20=
20, se realiz=C3=B3 una b=C3=BAsqueda sistem=C3=A1tica de t=C3=ADtulos, res=
=C3=BAmenes y palabras clave en Scopus utilizando la expresi=C3=B3n (=C2=AB=
entorno virtual de aprendizaje=C2=BB O VLE) Y =C2=ABingl=C3=A9s=C2=BB. La b=
=C3=BAsqueda identific=C3=B3 43 registros. Tras la revisi=C3=B3n de t=C3=AD=
tulos y res=C3=BAmenes, se excluyeron 21 registros y se evalu=C3=B3 la eleg=
ibilidad de 22 informes para su publicaci=C3=B3n a texto completo. Se exclu=
y=C3=B3 una publicaci=C3=B3n no emp=C3=ADrica de la s=C3=ADntesis cualitati=
va, quedando diecisiete estudios incluidos. Resultados. La evidencia apunta a un cambio gradual de las plataformas tradici=
onales como Moodle y Blackboard hacia entornos tridimensionales, con asiste=
ncia m=C3=B3vil, gamificados, colaborativos y con soporte de IA. En los VLE=
se abordaron las habilidades ling=C3=BC=C3=ADsticas integradas, el ingl=C3=
=A9s para fines espec=C3=ADficos, la autonom=C3=ADa del estudiante, la part=
icipaci=C3=B3n, la interacci=C3=B3n y el desarrollo metacognitivo. <=
span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Conclusiones. Los resultados destacaron la importancia =
de la alineaci=C3=B3n pedag=C3=B3gico-tecnol=C3=B3gica en la educaci=C3=B3n=
superior. =C3=81rea de estudio gen=
eral: educaci=C3=B3n. =
=C3=81rea de estudio espec=C3=ADfica: educaci=C3=B3n del idiom=
a ingl=C3=A9s. Tipo de art=C3=ADcul=
o: revisi=C3=B3n bibliogr=C3=A1fica sistem=C3=A1tica. | |
Keywords: Virtual learning environments, English language education, <=
p style=3D"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:115%; widows:2; o=
rphans:2; font-size:12pt">higher education, EFL, digital learning. | | Abstract Introduction=
. Virtual le=
arning environments (VLEs) have become a highly prominent feature of Englis=
h language teaching in higher education. Beyond the traditional learning ma=
nagement system, VLEs offer more immersive, mobile-assisted, gamified, and =
AI-supported learning spaces. However, evidence of their pedagogical contri=
bution is still scattered across different research traditions and technolo=
gical modalities. Objectives. Systematic review=
of empirical studies on EVA-mediated English language teaching in higher e=
ducation, with special emphasis on publication trends, language learning, m=
ethodological approaches, educational outcomes, and challenges in implement=
ation. Methodology. A systematic search was con=
ducted in Scopus under the PRISMA 2020 guidelines with the expression ("vir=
tual learning environment" or VAS) and English in titles, abstracts, and ke=
ywords. The search found 43 records, of which 21 were excluded in the title=
and abstract selection stage. 22 full-text reports were assessed for eligi=
bility. Epilogue. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic search=
for titles, abstracts and keywords was conducted in Scopus using the expre=
ssion ("virtual learning environment" or VLE) and "English". The search ide=
ntified 43 records. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 21 records were e=
xcluded and 22 reports were assessed for eligibility for full-text publicat=
ion. One non-empirical publication was excluded from qualitative synthesis,=
with seventeen studies included. R=
esults. Evid=
ence points to a gradual shift from traditional platforms such as Moodle an=
d Blackboard to three-dimensional, mobile-assistive, gamified, collaborativ=
e, and AI-supported environments. Integrated language skills, English for s=
pecific purposes, student autonomy, participation, interaction, and metacog=
nitive development were addressed in the VLEs. Conclusions. The results highlighted the importance of pedagogical-technolo=
gical alignment in higher education. General area of study: education. Specific area of study: English language educati=
on. Type of article: s=
ystematic bibliographic review. | |
| | | | | | | | |
1. Introduction
interaction, assessme=
nt, communication, and learner activity within a digitally mediated =
setting.
However, the concept of a VLE has become harder to bound. =
Previous implementations were tightly coupled with institutionally supporte=
d Learning Management Systems (LMSs) such =
as Moodle and Blackboard. Functions consisted of content distribution, assi=
gnment submission, asynchronous communication, assessment, and course admin=
istration. The structure has been expanded by subsequent technological deve=
lopments. Language education today may include mobile-assisted environments=
, synchronous collaborative spaces, 3D simulations, virtual and augmented r=
eality, gamification, conversational agents, adaptive systems, and <=
span style=3D"text-decoration:underline">Artificial Intelligence (AI). The VLE is therefore no longer simply an online repository or cour=
se-management platform, but rather an interactive digital space where learn=
ing activities, communication, feedback, and learner participation converge=
.
Emerging technologies have e=
xploded in growth, and this has led to several specialized strands of evide=
nce. For instance, Virtual=
Reality (VR) has received increasing attention to support sit=
uated and immersive English-language practice. Rahmanu & Moln=C3=A1r (2=
026) conducted a systematic review of VR-supported English education in hig=
her education and identified applications in EFL, ESL, ESP, EAP, and occupa=
tional English contexts. This synthesis reported on benefits across languag=
e domains, while also identifying constraints related to cognitive load and the physical de=
mands of immersive technologies. Empirical research has also shown that imm=
ersive environments can provide opportunities for practicing contextualized language and develo=
ping communicative skills (Zhang, 2020). This body of evidence demonstrates=
the pedagogical potential of immersive learning, but its technological foc=
us necessarily captures only one facet of the wider VLE landscape.Broader reviews of emerging technologie=
s also suggest an increasingly heterogeneous field. For example, Liu et al.=
(2026) synthesized applications of mobile learning, AI, VR/AR, gamification, and related technologies across <=
span>various levels of EFL<=
span style=3D"letter-spacing:0.6pt"> education.
Their meta-a=
nalytic results revealed a general positive effect of emerging technologies=
on learning outcomes, but also a large heterogeneity which emphasized the =
relevance of educational level, type of technology and conditions of implem=
entation.
This technological d=
iversification is also observable in empirical research, with mobile enviro=
nments being employed to expand language-learning opportunities beyond the =
traditional classroom setting and to enable flexible participation in learn=
ing activities (Wiboolyasarin, 2023). Recent developments in artificial int=
elligence have further expanded the scope of technology-mediated environmen=
ts for language teaching and learning (Jiang et al., 2025). However, this i=
s a growing scholarship, and the evidence available is in several ways frag=
mentary. Systematic reviews currently tend to organize literature around a single technology (e=
.g., VR, AI), a specific language domain (e.g., vocabulary), or a broad umb=
rella of emerging technologies across multiple educational levels. For exam=
ple, research into the combination of artificial intelligence and extended =
reality demonstrates how emerging technologies are increasingly converging =
in language learning environments and generating new cognitive and pedagogi=
cal demands (Chen &a=
mp; Xu, 2026). While these perspectives are valuable, they do not fully add=
ress the VLE as<=
/span> the central unit of analysis across English language education in higher<=
span style=3D"letter-spacing:-0.05pt"> education. The differen=
ce is conceptually significant. Moodle-based autonomous learning, Blackboar=
d-supported university English instruction, immersive three-dimensional spe=
aking environments, mobile-assisted learning spaces, gamified platforms, an=
d AI-supported virtual systems may be technologically different. But pedago=
gically, they can perform overlapping functions; they can help organize lan=
guage-learning activity, <=
span>facilitate interaction, provide feedback, extend opportunities for pra=
ctice, support learner regulation, and mediate access to instructional reso=
urces. For example, research on language learning supported by Moodle has d=
emonstrated its capacity to foster learner autonomy and to provide opportun=
ities for learning beyond classroom instruction (Jordan & Coyle,=
2013), in the same manner as Vai=C4=8Di=C5=ABnien=C4=97 <=
/span>& Gedvilien=C4=97 (2008), whereas studies on three-dimensional environments have indicated =
their affordances for socially situated and collaborative learning experien=
ces. Thus, the study of these environments together can reveal continuities and contrasts not a=
pparent when individual technologies are studied in isolation. Research on LMS-supported univer=
sity language education has revealed that students=E2=80=99 experiences are=
determined not only by the presence of platforms but also by their digital=
competence, perception, and ability to productively engage with technology=
-mediated instruction (Robinson et al., 2017). Therefore, the findings of m=
ixed educational populations may have little to say about the role of VLEs =
in tertiary English language teaching.
A further issue concerns the meaning of effectiveness. The educati=
onal contribution of Achievement scores alone cannot adequately characteriz=
e VLEs. Virtual language <=
span>learning might affect not only linguistic performance, but also engage=
ment, interaction, collaboration, learner autonomy, metacognitive regulatio=
n, accessibility, and perceptions=
of the learning experience. For example, research on technolo=
gy-mediated English learning has demonstrated that virtual environments can=
improve student interaction and engagement when technological affordances =
are linked to meaningful learning activities (Viloria et al., 2019). Simila=
rly, with the right pedagogical structures and resources to learners (Gulbi=
nskien=C4=97 et al., 2017), online environments can foster learner autonomy=
and self-regulated approaches to
language learning. VLEs also contribute <=
/span>to sp=
ecific languages.
learning processes. Technology-mediated feedback has been increasingly i=
ntegrated into writing instruction, giving learners more opportunities to r=
evise, reflect on, and improve their writing (Alrishan, 2024). Mobile-suppo=
rted environments have the potential to support flexible and customized edu=
cational experiences, enabling students to perform language activities in v=
arious contexts and on various devices (Khlaisang & Sukavatee, 2023). T=
he use of immersive technologies can introduce an additional dimension to t=
his as they allow le=
arners to take part in simulated communicative situations that are hard to =
reproduce in traditional classroom settings (Boda & T=C3=B3th, 2024). N=
evertheless, technological innovation does not automatically lead to effect=
ive education. Learning can create barriers to connectivity, access, social=
isolation, anxiety, decreased interaction, and the perception of diminishe=
d academic performance, especially when learning environments are implement=
ed without sufficient institutional or pedagogical support (Contreras et al=
., 2021; Wang et al., 2026). These environments require careful instruction=
al design to ensure that the complexity of the technology does not overwhel=
m students' cognitive or digital capacity. Therefore, a synthesis of both l=
inguistic findings and implementation conditions is required to offer a mor=
e balanced view of the field. The review is inclusive of VLEs, including tr=
aditional LMSs, as well as collaborative, mobile, immersive, gamified, and =
intelligent virtual environments, when these are used as structured environ=
ments for teaching or learning=
English. The growing diversity <=
/span>of such<=
/span> environments<=
span style=3D"letter-spacing:1.1pt"> is evidenced in studies exploring gamified=
approaches to language learning (Chang, 2023), immersive applications for =
enhancing language-learning experiences (Chen et al., 2025), and modern virtual environments enabling interaction and engag=
ement in English-language education (Karacan & Bekereci-=C5=9Eahin, 202=
5). In so doing, the review seeks to clarify how the field has evolved, wha=
t technological environments have been explored, what dimensions of English=
learning they address, how their educational contribution has been evaluat=
ed, and what benefits and constraints recur across different configurations=
.
The systematic review addresses the foll=
owing research questions:
RQ1. What are the publication trends and=
characteristics of research on virtual learning environments for English l=
anguage education in higher education?
RQ2. What types of virtual=
learning environments and technological platforms are used for English lan=
guage education in higher education?
=
RQ3. What English language sk=
ills and competencies are addressed through virtual learning environments?<=
/span>
RQ4=
. What research methodologies, participants, and data-collecti=
on instruments are employed to investigate VLE-mediated English language ed=
ucation in higher education? RQ5. <=
/span>What learning outcomes, pedagogical benefits, and implementatio=
n challenges are reported across the identified studies?
Previous empirical evidence has shown the potent=
ial of virtual environments for <=
/span>improving some aspects of language learning, such as feedback a=
nd written production (Espinoza, 2026). Other research concentrated on the =
potential of technology-mediated environments for developing more holistic =
language competencies (Windsor, 2021). Thus, the contribution of the present review is not to e=
valuate another individual technology but rather to place the VLE itself as=
the integrative analytical framework through which both conventional and e=
merging digital environments can be studied together. This synthesis can inform research=
ers looking=
to identify gaps in the evidence base, instructors making pedagogic=
ally informed decisions about digital environments, and higher education institutions.2.
=
0; Methods
2.1. Review design
The systematic review sur=
veyed the empirical literature on virtual learning environments (VLEs) for =
English language education in higher education. The review was reported and=
conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRI=
SMA 2020) guidelines (Page et al., 2021). It was conducted as =
an assertive systematic review, a methodology to identify, screen, assess, =
and synthesize studies concerning the pedagogical use of virtual environmen=
ts for English language teachi=
ng and learning in tertiary education.
Meta-analysis was not considered appropriate due to the significant =
methodological and technological heterogeneity of the retrieved studies. Ra=
ther, a structured narrative synthesis reported on publication patterns, te=
chnological contexts, language learning contexts, research methods, and key=
educational outcomes and challenges reported in the evidence base.<=
/p>
2.2. Information source and search strategy
The bibliographic database chosen w=
as Scopus. Scopus was chosen because the review aimed to find peer-reviewed=
scholarly literature indexed in a multidisciplinary citation database. Last searched on 15 Aug 2026. A deliberately<=
span style=3D"letter-spacing:0.9pt"> broad search expression was used to retain sensitivity at the identificatio=
n stage and to avoid premature exclusion of potentially relevant publicatio=
ns:
("Virtual <=
/span>learning environment" OR VLE) AND English*
Search was restricted to the title,=
abstract and keyword fields. Instead of embedding higher education and narrower ELT-related te=
rminology in the search expression, the educational level and the relevance=
to ELT were subsequently determined by manual screening. This strategy mea=
nt that potentially relevant studies using different descriptors (e.g., uni=
versity students, college English, EFL, ESL, ESP, pre-service teachers) rem=
ained eligible for assessment. The search retrieved 43 records, all of whic=
h were exported from Scopus with their bibliographic information, abstracts=
, author keywords, indexing terms, DOI information, and other available met=
adata.
2.3. Eligibility c=
Eligibility was decide=
d based on three substantive dimensions: educational context, language-lear=
ning focus, and technological environment. Studies were included if they (a) were conducted in a higher educa=
tion setting, such as universities, colleges, tertiary institutions,=
postgraduate education, or university-based pre-service teacher education.(b) focused on teaching or learning English, such a=
s EFL, ESL, ESP, College English, English-language teacher education, or sp=
ecific English-language competencies; and (c) investigated a digital environment as a learning environment, rather than using an isolated technological tool. The operational definition of a VLE was purposefully broad. Eligible envi=
ronments included conventional learning management systems such as Moodle a=
nd Blackboard, synchronous online spaces, purpose-built language-learning e=
nvironments, mobile-assisted environments, gamified systems, and immersive =
or three-dimensional virtual spaces. Primary empirical research using quant=
itative, qualitative, mixed-methods, experimental, quasi-experimental, desc=
riptive, longitudinal, or design-oriented
approaches was eligible for inclusion. We excluded co=
nceptual papers, literature reviews, systematic reviews, and other publicat=
ions that did not contain original empirical evidence from the final synthesis. Studies that we=
re conducted only in primary or secondary education were also excluded, as =
well as studies in which English was not the subject of instruction or lear=
ning. Studies that used virtual technologies to teach subjects other than English language education were also excluded. No study was exclude=
d on the grounds of irrelevance that could not be determined from the title=
. If the title or abstract did not provide enough evidence to make a defini=
te decision, the record was retained for further assessment instead of bein=
g discarded prematurely.2.4. Study=
selection
The study s=
election was conducted in two consecutive stages. First, titles and abstrac=
ts of the 43 records retrieved from Scopus were screened according to the p=
re-defined eligibili=
ty criteria. Each investigation was carefully considered regarding the educ=
ational context, target population, English-language focus, technological e=
nvironment, and empirical nature.=
In the first screening step, 21 records were excluded because=
they did not meet one or more of the eligibility criteria. The most common=
reasons included non-higher education populations, disciplinary contexts o=
ther than English language education, studies in which virtual technology was not serving as a =
language-learning environment, and non-empirical publications. The remainin=
g 22 reports were assessed for full-text eligibility. At this stage, a more=
detailed exploration of the educational setting, participant characteristi=
cs, research design, and role of the virtual environment was undertaken. On=
e report was excluded as it was a conceptual discussion rather than a prima=
ry empirical investigation. Twenty-one studies met the eligibility criteria=
and were included in the qualitative synthesis.
2.5. Da=
ta extraction
=
The conduction of the study developed a structured extraction matrix to sys=
tematically characterize the evidence included. For each eligible study, da=
ta were extracted on author(s), year of publication, country or geographica=
l context, higher-education setting, participant characteristics, sample si=
ze, type of VLE or technological platform, English-language skill or instru=
ctional focus, research design, data-collection instruments, intervention o=
r implementation duration, and principal findings.
2.6. Data synthesis
The included studies varied in <=
/span>terms of participant groups, technological set-ups, rese=
arch designs, duration of the intervention, instruments, and outcome=
measures, so statistical pooling=
was =
considered inappropr=
iate. The<=
span style=3D"letter-spacing:1.9pt">
evidence was thus synthesized descriptively and thematically. The synthesis was developed along five analytica=
l dimensions that correspond to the research questions. First, the years of=
publication and study characteristics were examined to identify temporal t=
rends in literature. Second, the VLEs and technology platforms were classif=
ied according to the main technology configuration. Third, the skills, comp=
etencies and learning-related constructs in the corpus that are associated =
with the English language. Fourth, methodological characteristics, such as =
research design, participant profile, sample size, and data-collection proc=
edures, were compared across studies. Finally, reported educational outcome=
s, pedagogical affordances, implementation constraints, and recurring challenges were thematica=
lly synthesized.3. Results
3.1. Study selection
technologies for disciplinary purpo=
ses unrelated to language education; and the non-empirical nature of the pu=
blication. The remaining 22 reports underwent full-text eligibility assessm=
ent. One report was subsequently excluded because it presented a conceptual=
discussion without original empirical evidence. The final corpus therefore=
comprised 21 empirical studies addressing the implementation, evaluation, =
or pedagogical appli=
cation of VLEs for English language education in higher education. The selection procedure =
is summarized in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1).
=
&#=
xa0;
=
;
Figure 1
PRISMA 2020 flow <=
/span>diagram of
the study<=
/span> selection process
![3D""](3D"image.007.png")
![3D""](3D"image.009=)
![3D""](3D"image.008.png")
![3D""](3D"image.011.png")
![3D""](3D"image.012.png")
![3D""](3D"image.013.png")
=
![3D""](3D"image.015.png")
![3D""](=3D"image.012.png")
![](3D"image.018.png")
![3D""](3D"image.017.png")
![3D""](3D"image.016.png")
![3D""](3D"image.01=)
=
![3D""](3D"image.021.png")
![3D""](3D"image.020.png")
=
![3D""](3D"=)
![3D=](3D"image.022.png")
![3D""](=3D"image.023.png")
![3D""](3D"imag=)
<=
/span>
Note. The flow diagram follows the PRISM=
A 2020 template for new systematic reviews using databases and registers.
3.2. Temporal distribution of evidence
The literature covered spans close to two decades=
, from 2008 to 2026, with an uneven path in scholarly production. In the past, contributions we=
re sporadic, while in later years more sustained research effort was genera=
ted. This trend has been especially true since 2020, when research has focu=
sed more on traditional learning management systems, but also on immersive =
environments, mobile-assisted applications, gamified spaces, and platforms supported by =
artificial intelligence. The temporal pattern suggests a gradu=
al broadening of the VLE construct in English education. Earlier research f=
ocused on institutional platforms and online learning environments, but mor=
e recent work has explored more technologically sophisticated settings with=
simulation, immersion, mobility, adaptive functionality, and greater inter=
action among learners. The evidence base reveals both the persistence of es=
tablished LMS-mediated instruction and the rise of increasingly diversified=
digital learning ecosystems (Table=
1).
Table 1
Characteristics of the Included Studies
Study / Year=
| Higher - education contex=
t | Sample | Research design
Espinoza (2026) | Chile | Undergraduate EFL students | 60=
| Mixed-methods quasi-experimental |
Kan (2025) | China | Vocational college science / engineering stude=
nts | NR | Experimental / comparativ=
e |
Chen et al. (2025) | NR | College EFL =
students | 240 | Randomized controll=
ed trial |
Robinson et al. (2017) | South Korea | in English clas=
ses | 686 | Quantitative survey |
Wiboolyasarin (2023) | Thailand | Pre-service teachers=E2=80=99 / university student teache=
rs | 523 surveys, 88 tria=
ls | Mixed methods |
Alrishan (2024) | =
Jordan | Undergraduate English language and lit=
erature students | 90 surveys, <=
span>20 interviews | Mixed methods |
Jordan & Coyle (2013) | =
China | First-year stu=
dents at an English-medium university | NR | Usage analytics + survey |
=
Karacan
=
0;& Bekereci-=C5=9Eahin (2025) | Turkey | Pre-servic=
e English language teachers | 63 | =
Q=
ualitative |
Viloria et al. <=
/span> (2019) | India<=
/p> | Mumbai University students in a Virtual English Cour=
se | NR | Data-mining study |
Jiang et al. =
(2025) | NR | Un=
iversity-linked English-language learners aged 18-30 | NR | Between-group experiment |
Chang (2023) | China=
| College English learners in higher education=
| NR | Model development + empirica=
l evaluation |
Herrera=
(2017) | Colombia =
| Public-university EFL students and teachers <=
/td> | 210 students; 5 teachers | Descriptive qualit=
ative |
Sarr=C3=A9 =
(2013) | France | <=
td style=3D"width:129.55pt; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt=
; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top=
">First-year Master's biology students
<=
span>NR | Design / implementation + learner-perception study |
Khlaisang & Sukavatee (2023) | Thailand | Higher-education learners | 546 | Mixed-method development / evaluation |
| Contreras et al. (2021) | =
M=
exico | Bachelor in English Language students a=
nd professors | 152 students, 26 professors | Quantitative descriptive survey <=
/td> |
Zhang (2020) | <=
p style=3D"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:115%; font-size:1=
0pt">China | Higher-education learners in=
spoken-English instruction | 100 | =
Pre/post intervention study |
Boda & T=C3=B3th (2024) | Hungary | University computer-science majors | NR | Classroom experience / evaluation<=
/p> |
Snytnikova (=
2016) | Russia | Master's students =
in Chemistry/Biology | NR | Course i=
mplementation / evaluation |
=
Vai=C4=8Di=C5=ABnien=C4=97 & Gedviliene (2008) | =
Lithuania | University ESP students=
| NR | Experimental course / case Evaluation |
Windsor (2021) | China | First-year university undergraduates | ~1,000 across | Longitudinal cohort / intervention evalu=
ation |
Gulbinskien=C4=97 et al. (2017) | Lithuania | <=
p style=3D"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:115%; font-size:1=
0pt">University students | NR | Survey / evaluative study |
&#=
xa0;
3.3.<=
/span> T=
ypes o=
f virt=
ual le=
arning environments and technological platforms
A great deal of technological variation was found in the 21=
studies. The identified environments could be categorized into some broad =
categories of environments such as learning management systems, synchronous=
and collaborative online environments, immersive or three-dimensional virt=
ual environments, mobile-assisted environments, gamified systems and purpos=
e-built or intelligent learning environments. The most frequently mentioned=
conventional LMS platforms in the corpus were Moodle and Blackboard. These environments had a range of purposes, from autonomous l=
anguage learning and teaching of grammar to English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and development of integrate=
d language skills. The studies performed a pedagogical role not only by del=
ivering content but also by managing assignments, interacting with learners=
, providing self-paced practice, and accessing additional instructional res=
ources.
The second cluster incl=
uded collaborative and synchronous environments that were designed to encou=
rage interaction between learners and instructors. These spaces supported t=
ask-based activities, teacher education, collaborative language practice, a=
nd synchronous participation. Rather than simply repositories of instructio=
nal materials, they evolved into digitally mediated environments in which c=
ommunication was itself part of the learning experience (Table 2).
Table 2
Virtual learning environments and English-language foci
Study | VLE / Platform | English-l=
anguage focus | Duration |
Espinoza (2026) | =
VLE (platform not specified) | Writing; =
grammatical accuracy | Academic semester |
Kan (2025) =
| VR/AR scenario-based VLE | Voca=
tional English, collaborative problem solving | N=
R |
Chen et al.=
(2025) | Gather Town | Reading =
speed;10 weeks=
|
Robinson et =
al. (2017) | Blackboard | Integrated language skills, perceptions | NR |
Wiboolyasarin (2023) | <=
span>Talent LMS-based VTLLE | English communicat=
ion, language proficiency | 12 weeks |
Alri=
shan (2024) | Virtual instructional environment =
/ online composition course | Academic writing / essay writing | NR<=
/p> |
Jordan & Coyle (=
2013) | Moodle | Autono=
mous English self-study | =
One semester |
K=
aracan & Bekereci-=C5=9Eahin (2025) | Collab=
orative synchronous online VLE | Teacher&#x=
a0;education, technology integration, self-learning =
| 14 weeks |
=
Viloria et al. (2019) | Virtual En=
glish Course / distance-education environment | E=
nglish-course&#x=
a0;interaction and engagement | 2015=
=E2=80=932018 dataset |
![3D""](3D"image.025.png") Jiang et al. (2025)
| AI-dri=
ven gamified VLE | English learning, Engagement, motivation | NR <=
/td> |
Chang (2023) | Intelligent demand-driven College English environment | College English, personalized=
learning | NR |
Herrera (2017) | Inst=
itutional VLE | EFL learning, attitudes, motivati=
on | NR |
Sarr=C3=A9 (2013) | Online ES=
P module / VLE | English for Biologists (ESP) | NR |
Khlaisang & Sukavatee (2023) | MALLIE =
chatbot-based mobile-assisted VLE | =
English communication, four skills | <=
p style=3D"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:115%; font-size:1=
0pt">NR
Contreras et al. (2021) | Emergency virtual education / online classes | English-language degree education, virtual teaching experience | Spring 2020 |
Zhang (2020) | 3D VR / compute=
r-simulation VLE | Speaking / spoken English | 12 weeks |
Boda & T=C3=B3th (2024) | MaxWhere 3D virtual space / virtual library | ESL, linguistic knowledge | 2020=E2=80=932021 academic years |
Snytnikova (2016) | Moodle =
LMS | English for Chemists and Biologists (ESP) | NR |
Vai=C4=8Di=C5=ABnien=C4=97 & Ged=
viliene (2008) | VLE integrated with traditional =
learning | ESP; information literacy; foreign lan=
guage competencies | NR |
Windsor (2021) | Independent Grammar Study Scheme (IGSS) VLE | Grammar | 14 weeks per coh=
ort |
Gulbinskie=
n=C4=97 et al. (2017) | Moo=
dle | English-language skills, <=
span>Metacognition, learner autonomy | NR<=
/p> |
| | | | | |
3.4. English language skills and educational<=
span style=3D"font-weight:normal; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:0.4pt">=
foci
The pedagogical a=
pplications found in the corpus spanned a wide range of English language sk=
ills and related learner competences. The evidence was not sufficiently rob=
ust in any one linguistic domain to characterize VLE research as limited to=
one dimension of language learning. Speaking and oral communication became a prominent area of=
investigation, particularly in immersive, simulated, mobile and task-orien=
ted environments. In general, these studies used virtual spaces to increase=
opportunities for interaction, to contextualize communication, or to provi=
de spoken-language practice away from the constraints of the traditional classroom. Writing was also a frequent ins=
tructional focus. Composition, grammatical accuracy, corrective feedback, a=
nd academic writing =
were supported in virtual environments. In these contexts, the digital envi=
ronment often enabled iterative practice, access to feedback and long-term =
engagement with written production. Common measures of linguistic performance were also exceede=
d by the corpus. Some of the investigations have addressed learner autonomy, metacognitive awar=
eness, engagement, motivation, interaction, collaboration, and digital comp=
etence. This work recommends that VLE research in higher education conceptu=
alizes successful language learning not only as achievement scores, but als=
o as the capacit=
y of the<=
span style=3D"letter-spacing:-0.05pt"> learners to self-regulate, participate in, and maintain their own learning.
3.5. Methodological characteristics
Included studies showed considerable=
methodological heterogeneity. It included quantitative, qualitative, mixed=
-methods, experimental, quasi-experimental, descriptive, longitudinal, and =
design-based approaches. This diversity demonstrates the multidimensional n=
ature of VLE research, with researchers examining both quantifiable languag=
e outcomes and the experiences of learners and instructors in digitally med=
iated education. Cha=
nges in linguistic performance or associated educational outcomes were inve=
stigated using pre- and post-intervention measures in experiments and quasi-experiments. Some h=
ad comparison groups, delayed assessments, or longer interventions, increas=
ing the confidence that changes were related to specific instructional sett=
ings. Survey-based research was another major methodological approach. Ques=
tionnaires were employed to explore perceptions, attitudes, autonomy, engag=
ement, usability, satisfaction, and experiences associated with online inst=
ruction.
Qualitative investigat=
ions offered a more contextualized understanding of participants=E2=80=99 e=
xperiences, especially in relation to interaction, professional development=
, online collaboration, and perceived constraints. Mixed-methods designs ai=
med to combine performance-based evidence with the perspectives of learners=
, so that the effectiveness of virtual environments could be considered alo=
ngside the experiences through which those outcomes were achieved. Sample characteristics were =
also heterogeneous. Participants were undergraduate students, postgraduate =
learners, university students taking general English or ESP courses, pre-se=
rvice English teachers, and students from non-language disciplines receivin=
g English-language instruction (Tab=
le 3).
Table 3
Methodological characteristics and main findings
Study=
| =
Main finding / contribution |
Espinoza (2026)=
| Greate=
r grammatical accuracy and sustained gains with metalinguistic corrective f=
eedback. |
Kan (2025) | Improved collaboration efficiency a=
nd application of English in interdisciplinary problem solving. <=
/td> |
Chen et al. (2025) | Higher reading speed and IELTS performance than =
traditional instruction. |
Robinson et al. (2017)
Students=
reported benefits for language learning alongside limitations and areas fo=
r improvement. |
Wiboolyasarin (2023) =
| Task-based VLE su=
pported language-related outcomes; device type did not materially alter performance. |
Alrishan (2024)=
| Positi=
ve academic experiences were accompanied by obstacles in virtual writing in=
struction. |
Jordan & Coyle (2013) <=
/td> | High initial parti=
cipation and positive attitudes toward self-study, with declining activity =
over time. |
Karacan & Bekereci-=C5=9Eahin (202=
5) | Enha=
nced engagement, interaction, and professional development; learners reques=
ted more practical group work. |
Viloria et al. (20=
19) | Stu=
dent interaction patterns were identified and modeled through educational d=
ata mining. |
Jiang et al. (2025) | <=
td style=3D"width:76.22%; border-top:0.75pt solid #7e7e7e; border-bottom:0.=
75pt solid #7e7e7e; vertical-align:top">AI-supported gamified s=
caffolding was evaluated against non-gamified
alterna=
tives in a VLE.
Chang (2023) | An intelligent demand-dri=
ven model was proposed and empirically evaluated for College English learni=
ng.
Herrera (2017) | Participants reported enthusiasm and =
motivation, while implementation conditions shaped the experience. |
Sarr=C3=A9 (2013) | Technology-mediated ESP tasks were implemente=
d and positively evaluated in a disciplinary context. |
<=
tr style=3D"height:17.4pt"><=
span>Khlaisang & Sukavatee (2023) | Key factors for effec=
tive mobile-assisted English learning informed development and evaluation o=
f MALLIE. | Contreras et al. (2021) | Connectivity, interaction, isolation/anxiety, and perceived lower performa=
nce were prominent challenges. |
Zhang (2020) | The virtual =
environment increased interest and engagement and improved spoken-English l=
earning outcomes. |
Boda & T=C3=B3th (2024) | A 3D virt=
ual-space approach supported English instruction and generated learner feed=
back on the environment. |
Snytnikova (2016)=
Moodle-suppor=
ted blended instruction demonstrated the potential of LMS use for universit=
y ESP. |
Vai=C4=8Di=C5=ABnien=C4=97 & Gedvilie=
ne (2008) | The integrated course linked language learning with information-literac=
y and social competencies. |
=
Windsor (2021) | | Gulbinskien=C4=97 et al. (2017) | Students associated Moodle with language-skill development, metac=
ognitive awareness, and autonomy. |
3.6. Reported learning outcomes and pedagogical benefits
=
The results presented across the body of ev=
idence were positive, but the type and strength of the evidence varied by r=
esearch design. Experimental and intervention studies demonstrated improvem=
ents in grammatical accuracy, reading performance, spoken English, communic=
ative competence, and other language-related outcomes. The results suggest =
that virtual environments can be designed to provide conditions for linguis=
tic development. Some studies also linked VLE participation with higher lev=
els of engagement, motivation, interaction, collaboration and learner auton=
omy, besides measurable performance. Digital environments seemed especially=
useful when they provided additional practice opportunities, access to lea=
rning materials beyond scheduled classroom periods, or interaction that oth=
erwise would have been limited by time or physical location. Evidence also =
suggests that the educational value of technology is mediated through pedag=
ogical design.
3.7. Challenges and constraints
Differences in d=
igital competence may also influence learners=E2=80=99 ability to engage effectively in technol=
ogically demanding environments. Another complex dimension was interaction.=
While virtual environments offered new opportunities for communication, so=
me participants reported a decreased sense of immediacy, limited social pre=
sence, or difficulties sustaining meaningful interaction compared to face-t=
o-face instruction. =
Learner engagement was also context specific. Digital environments could pr=
omote motivation through interactivity, gamification, immersion, or flexibl=
e access, but participation was not necessarily sustained over time. Resear=
ch on autonomous and self-directed environments suggests that without instr=
uctional scaffolding, feedback, or learn=
er regulation, initial engagement may decrease.
3.8. Synthesis of findings across research questions
Analyzing the 21 studies reveals an increasing hete=
rogeneity in English language education mediated by VLEs. Regarding RQ1, th=
e results reveal a longitudinal evolution from rather isolated early studie=
s toward more focused and technologically diverse research The corpus for RQ2 shows a shift fro=
m traditional LMS platforms to an ecosystem that includes synchronous colla=
boration, immersive three-dimensional spaces, mobile applications, gamifica=
tion, and AI-supported environments. T RQ3 =E2=80=93 The VLEs were used in =
relation to speak, writing, reading, grammar, ESP, integrated language skil=
ls, and wider constructs related to learner development. Hence, their pedag=
ogic scope embraces linguistic performance and dimensions such as autonomy,=
engagement, interaction, and metacognitive development. In relation to RQ4=
, the methodological framework was marked by high heterogeneity. Surveys, q=
ualitative inquiries, mixed-methods investigations, learning analytics and =
technology-development studies were alongside experimental and quasi-experi=
mental designs. Finally, concerning RQ5, the synthesis shows positive educa=
tional outcomes, but also a lot of contextual variation. Language performan=
ce, participation, motivation, interaction, and autonomous learning improve=
ments were recurrently documented.
4.
=
0; Discussio=
n
This systematic review synthes=
izes empirical research on virtual learning environments for English language education in hig=
her education, integrating evidence that has been scattered across conventi=
onal learning management systems, immersive technologies, mobile applicatio=
ns, gamified environments, and more recent AI-supported platforms. Three general observations emerge from the synthesis. Fir=
st, the conceptual boundaries of the VLE have widened =
over time. Second, positive language learning outcomes are less related to =
the technological environment per se than to the pedagogical practices embe=
dded within it. Third, despite the growing sophistication of such environme=
nts, the educational value of virtual environments lies in learner autonomy, interaction, feedb=
ack, and instructional design.
4.1. From learning management systems to diversified virtual learn=
ing ecosystems
One of t=
he most obvious trends in the corpus is the increasing diversification of t=
he technologies used to deliver virtual English language education. Previou=
s studies tended to =
conceptualize the VLE through institutionally established learning manageme=
nt systems, especially Moodle and Blackboard. In these kinds of environment=
s, the technology was used to organize courses, distribute resources, pract=
ice in free time, co=
mmunicate, and learn outside the classroom during scheduled hours. More rec=
ent research, however, takes a broader view of virtual learning. Convention=
al LMS architecture is increasingly co-existing with immersive three-dimens=
ional environments, mobile-assisted systems, virtual collaborative spaces, =
gamified platforms, chatbots, and AI-supported applications.
4.2. Pedagogical design as a mediator of language-learning outcomes
Caution is needed=
in interpreting the positive findings reported in most included studies. I=
mprovements were observed in several linguistic areas, including speaking, =
writing, grammatical accuracy, reading, communicative competence and ESP-re=
lated learning. But =
the variety of technologies and instructional arrangements makes it hard to=
attribute these outcomes to virtuality alone. More plausibly, VLEs can est=
ablish conditions in which effective language learning practices are more accessible, more freq=
uent, more flexible, or more engaging.
4.3. Linguistic development beyond isolated language skills
Another important finding relate=
s to the range of learning outcomes that are investigated across the eviden=
ce base. Traditio=
nal language domains such as speaking, writing, reading and grammar remain prominent, but the included studies frame these skills increasingly in broader constructs including communicatio=
n, collaboration, learner autonomy, metacognitive awareness, engagement, an=
d digital competence. This wider orientation is consistent with the affordances of virtual lear=
ning. A VLE can bring together resources, communication, assessment, feedba=
ck, collaboration, and independent learning in a common environment, unlike instructional technologies that are designed for practice of a discrete linguist=
ic feature. Therefore, language development can happen in tandem with compe=
tencies around self-regulation, interaction, information management, and di=
gital participation.
4=
.4. Learner autonomy, engagement, and interaction
Learner autonomy emerged as an important cross-cutting =
dimension of education mediated by VLEs. Virtual environments can allow students to have more c=
ontrol over when, in what order, at what speed, and how often they engage i=
n learning activities. This flexibility is particularly relevant in higher =
education, where learners are increasingly expected to take responsibility <=
span>for managing<=
/span> large parts of their academic work.
4.5. Methodological diversity and the strength of evidence
=
The evidence base is methodologically heter=
ogeneous across the 21 studies, which is strength and limitation. Experimen=
tal and quasi-experimental studies show changes in observable language outc=
omes, while qualitative and survey research provide insights into learner perceptions, implemen=
tation issues, and contextual factors that cannot be captured by performanc=
e measures alone. Mixed-methods inquiries are particularly valuable when th=
ey combine evidence of learning outcomes with descriptions of participants=
=E2=80=99 experiences of the instructional environment. Nevertheless, metho=
dological diversity makes direct comparison difficult. Sample sizes were va=
stly different. Interventions were of =
different =
lengths of time<=
/span> and outcome measures were not consistent. The technologies studi=
ed ranged from traditional LMS platforms to specially designed immersive sy=
stems.
4.6. Challenges to sustainable =
VLE =
implementation
The barriers iden=
tified across the corpus show that successful VLE integration cannot be und=
erstood as simply an instructional-design problem. The conditions of virtua=
l language education are determined by technological infrastructure, instit=
utional support, digital competence, accessibility, and teacher training. Another important con=
sideration is teache=
r competence. As virtual environments become more technologically advanced,=
instructors need to know more than how to use digital resources. They shou=
ld be able to select technologies based on pedagogical purpose, design onli=
ne interactions, provide feedback using appropriate modalities, interpret e=
vidence of digital learning, and decide when technological mediation adds e=
ducational value.
4.7. Implications<=
span style=3D"font-weight:normal; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:0.45pt"=
> for=
Englishlanguage educati=
on in=
high=
er education
T=
he findings have several implications for university-level English language=
education; institutions should not choose VLEs just because they are techn=
ologically new. The =
choice of platform should be informed by an analysis of the instructional o=
bjectives, the characteristics of the learner, the language competencies, t=
he accessibility requirements, and the types of interaction that the course=
requires.
4.8. Limitations and =
future research
There are several li=
mitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings of this =
systematic review. Firstly, the literature search was only conducted on Sco=
pus. The database provides extensive multidisciplinary coverage and indexes=
a large body of peer-reviewed research. However, relevant studies that are=
available only through other bibliographic sources may not be included. Se=
condly, the search strategy was <=
/span>intentionally wide. This approach reduced the risk of missing p=
otentially relevant studies whose abstracts did not explicitly contain the =
term higher education. The terminology around digitally mediated learning, =
however, is very heterogeneous. Research in related constructs such as comp=
uter-assisted language learning, technology-enhanced language learning, onl=
ine language learning, blended learning, mobile-assisted language learning.=
Third, there was substantial heterogeneity among the 21 included studies. =
Technological platforms, participant characteristics, sample size, duration=
of intervention, instructional objectives, language skills, study designs,=
and outcome measures were heterogeneous. The variability precluded meaningful statistical aggr=
egation and required a narrative and thematic synthesis. The findings shoul=
d therefore be interpreted as patterns across a diverse evidence base, rather <=
/span>than a=
s a pooled estimate of <=
/span>the e=
ffectiveness of VLEs.
=
5. &#x=
a0; Conclusions
The objective of this systematic review was to=
investigate empirical evidence on the use of virtual learning environments for teaching Englis=
h language in higher education. Following a systematic identification and s=
creening process, 21 empirical studies were retained for synthesis. Taken t=
ogether, the evidence paints a picture of a field that has moved from conve=
ntional learning management systems to a heterogeneous technological landsc=
ape including collaborative online spaces, immersive three-dimensional environments, mobile-=
assisted applications, gamified systems and increasingly intelligent or AI-=
supported learning environments.
=
The synthesis indicates that VLEs have been used in a variety of English la=
nguage domains, such as speaking, writing, reading, grammar, integrated lan=
guage skills, communicative competence, and English for Specific Purposes. =
Their educational scope goes beyond linguistic performance to include learn=
er autonomy, engagement, <=
span>interaction, collaboration, metacognitive awareness, and digitally med=
iated participation. The evidence was favorable but not consistent. Positiv=
e perceptions of flexibility, engagement, interaction, and autonomous learn=
ing were accompanied by improvements in specific language outcomes. The met=
hodological heterogeneity of the corpus, however, does not allow a generali=
zed claim that VLEs are more effective than conventional instruction per se=
. The findings suggest instead that educational outcomes are determined by the interaction bet=
ween the technological affordances, instructional design, learner characteristics, teacher mediation, and institutional<=
/span> conditions. Higher e=
ducation institutions need more than just access to digital platforms for e=
ffective implementation. Investment in infrastructure needs to be matched w=
ith professional development that allows instructors to make pedagogically =
informed decisions about virtual interaction, assessment, feedback, accessibility, learner <=
span>analytics, a=
nd emergent AI-supported functionality. Institutional strategies should als=
o consider inequalities in connectivity. As virtual learning environments a=
re increasingly likely to incorporate immersive technologies, mobile intera=
ction, learning analytics, gamification and artificial intelligence, resear=
ch should not conflate innovation with effectiveness. The next phase=
of research requires more =
compelling evidence regarding the conditions in which these environments yi=
eld enduring linguistic and educational benefits. An evidence-based approac=
h such as this can help to ensure that technological development is subserv=
ient to and informed by the pedagogical purposes of English language educat=
ion.
6. Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of in=
terest in relation to the article presented.
7.&#=
xa0; C=
opyright
The authors are the owners of the copyright=
(patrimonial and/or exploitation) of the contents of the journal (<=
span style=3D"font-style:italic">copyright).
8. Authors' contribution statement
The authors declare that they have participated equally and sub=
stantially in the conduct of this research, under the responsibilities unde=
r the CRediT Taxon=
omy to describe the individual contributions of each autho=
r to the work.
Jos=C3=A9 Luis An=
drade Mendoza: research, methodology, data curation, writing - original dra=
ft, discussion of results, review, and approval of the final document.
Adriana Carolina Lara Velarde: method=
ology, data curation, writing =E2=80=93 original draft, discussion of resul=
ts, review, and approval of the final document.
Disclosure of delegation to gene=
rative AI
No generative AI was us=
ed in the development of this research.
Statement submitted by: Jos=C3=A9 Luis Andrade Mendoza.
9. Financing costs This research was funded entirely with the authors' own funds.
=
10. Refe=
rences
Al=
rishan, A. (2024). Teaching writing courses in a virtual environment: Explo=
ring the perspectives of EFL university students. International Journal of Educa=
tion and Practice, 12(2), 497=E2=80=93510. https://doi.org/10.1848=
8/61.v12i2.3721
Boda, I. K., & T=C3=B3th, E. (2024)=
. Knowledge base development for second language learning in the 3D virtual space. Infocommunications Journal, 16(Sp=
ecial Issue), 67=E2=80=9375. https://doi.org/10.36244/ICJ=
.2024.5.8 Chang, Y. (2023). Constructing a demand-driven c=
ollege English learning environment in higher educati=
on institutions. Applied Artificia=
l Intelligence, 37(1). https://doi.o=
rg/10.1080/08839514.2023.2211459
Ch=
en, G., Fan, Y., & Liao, Z. (2025). Evaluating the effectiveness of Gat=
her Town on EFL stud=
ents' reading speed and IELTS scores. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 17(1=
), 1=E2=80=9314. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJMBL.383511
Chen, W., & Xu,=
W. (2026). The effectiveness of technology-enhanced L2 learning in higher =
education on academic performance from a cognitive load perspective: a meta=
-analysis. System, 140, 104068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2026.104068 =
Contreras=
, C. P., Picazo, D., Cordero-Hidalgo, A., & Chaparro-Medina, P. M. (202=
1). Challenges of virtual education during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences of Mexican university professors and students=
. International Journal of Learnin=
g, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(3), 188=E2=80=93204. =
htt=
ps://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.3.12
Espinoza, A. Q. (2026). The =
effect of indirect and metalinguistic corrective feedback on EFL writing ac=
curacy in a virtual learning environment: A mixed-methods study. International Journal of Learning, Teaching =
and Educational Research, 25(6), 1004=E2=80=931025. https://doi.o=
rg/10.26803/ijlter.25.6.43
Gulbinskien=C4=97, D., Masoodi, M., &=
; =C5=A0liogerien=C4=97, J. (2017). Moodle as virtual learning environment =
in developing language skills, fostering metacognitive awareness and promot=
ing learner autonomy. Pedagogika, =
127(3), 176=E2=80=93185. https://doi.org/10.158=
23/p.2017.47
Jiang, X., Wang, R., Hoang, T., Ranaweera, C., Dong, C., & Myers=
, T. (2025). AI-powered gamified scaffolding: transforming learning in virt=
ual learning environment. Electron=
ics, 14(13), Article 2732. https://d=
oi.org/10.3390/electronics14132732
Jordan, E., & Coyle, M. (2013). Using a virtual learning environment to prom=
ote autonomous language learning for Chinese students. In Comp=
uter-assisted foreign language teaching and learning: Technological advance=
s. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2821-2=
.ch009
Kan, X. (2025). Enhancing collaborative problem-solving skills=
through scenario-based virtual learning environments: integrating technica=
l content into vocational English for polytechnical students (=
Proceedings of the 2025 6th International Conference on Education, Knowledg=
e and Information Management (ICEKIM 2025).https://doi.org/10.1145/3756580.375=
6650
Karacan, C. G., & Bekereci-=C5=9Eahin, M. (2025). Explorin=
g a collaborative synchronous online learning environment in an initial lan=
guage teacher education program. S=
tudies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 16(3), 477=E2=80=93503=
. https://d=
oi.org/10.37237/202404
Khlaisang, J., & Sukavatee, P. (2023). Mobile-assisted=
language learning to support English language communication among higher e=
ducation learners in Thailand. Electronic Jo=
urnal of e-Learning, 2=
1(3), 234=E2=80=93247. =
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.21.3.2974
Liu, M., Hashim, H., & Sulaiman, N. A. (2026). A sys=
tematic review of emerging technology applications for teaching Englis=
h as a foreign language =
across different educational level=
s. Educational Research Review, 52=
(100795), 100795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100795
Herrera Mosquera, L. (2017). Impact of imple=
menting a<=
span style=3D"letter-spacing:0.9pt"> virtual learning environment (VLE) in the EFL classroom. =C3=8Dkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22=
(3), 479=E2=80=93498. https://doi.org/10.17=
533/udea.ikala.v22n03a07 <=
/span>
Page, M. J=
., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C=
. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl,<=
span style=3D"letter-spacing:1.6pt"> E. A., Brennan, <=
/span>S. E.,=
Chou, R., Glanville, J.,=
Grimshaw, J. M., Hr=C3=B3bjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W.,=
Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 state=
ment: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1=
136/bmj.n71
=
Rahmanu, I.=
W. E. D., & Moln=C3=A1r, G. (2026). Virtual reality in English language education: A systematic review of opportunities and challenges i=
n higher education. Acta Psycholog=
ica, 264(106358), 106358. https://d=
oi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106358
Robinson, G., Basco, L.=
M., Mathews, Y., Dancel, <=
/span>R., P=
rincena, M.=
A., & Keever, M. J. M. (201=
7). ESL student perceptions of VLE effectiveness at a university in South K=
orea. Journal of Language Teaching=
and Research, 8(5), 847=E2=80=93857. https:=
//doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0805.02
Sar=
r=C3=A9, C. (2013). Technology-mediated tasks in English for specific purpo=
ses (ESP): Design, implementation and learner perception. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language=
Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 1=E2=80=9316. =
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2013040101
Snytnikova, N. (2016). Using a learning management system in t=
he course of English for university students. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer =
Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) (Vol. 1, pp. 531=E2=80=93538)=
. SCITEPRESS. https://doi.org/10.5220/0005913905310538=
Vai=C4=8Di=C5=ABnien=C4=97, V., &a=
mp; Gedvilien=C4=97, G. (2008). Students learning experience in the integra=
ted information literacy course constructed in virtual learning environment=
. Informatics in Education, 7(1), 127=E2=80=93142. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2008.08
=
Viloria, A., Rodr=C3=ADguez L=C3=B3pez, J., Payares, K., Vargas-Mercado, C.=
, Duran, S. E., Hern=C3=A1ndez-Palma, H., & Arrozola David, M. (2019). =
Determinating student interactions in a virtual learning environment using data mining. =
Procedia Computer Science, 155, 587=E2=80=93592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.08.082
W=
ang, Y., Hasim, Z., Wu, L., & Fang, Y. (2026). The use of artificial in=
telligence in English language teaching and learning in higher education: a=
systematic literature review.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Cogent Education, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2026.2696619
Wiboolyasarin,=
W. (2023). Can a virtual task-based language learning environment enhance<=
/span> pre-service
teachers' performance? Comparing non- and users of iPad. Jour=
nal of Interactive Media in Education, 2023(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.5=
334/jime.802
Windsor, R. J. (2021). The effectiveness of an online =
grammar study scheme for Chinese undergraduate students. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1), 3. <=
/span>https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00147-w=
Zhang, M. (2020). Virtual situated learning o=
f spoken English based on computer simulation technology. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in L=
earning, 15(4), 206=E2=80=93217. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.=
v15i04.12939
![3D""](3D"image.027.png")
![3D""](3D"image.026.png")
&=
#xa0;
=
0; &=
#xa0; Nombre del volumen &#x=
a0; P=C3=A1gina 1 | 145
<=
/div>