INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING
1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana
1,2
Institut Teknologi Pagar Alam
1
E-mail: lesianggrainiayra@[Link] , 2aprianasalim93@[Link]

Accepted :
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the effectiveness of Augmented Reality (AR) in improving
6 July 2025 -experimental design with a
pre-test and post-test control group, the research involved 60 eleventh-grade
Published : students at SMA Negeri 3 Pagaralam, divided into experimental and control
9 July 2025 groups. The experimental group received speaking instruction integrated with AR,
while the control group followed conventional methods. Data were collected
Corresponding Author: through speaking tests, questionnaires, and observation sheets. The results show a
Lesi Anggraini
mean gain of 9.52 points, compared to 3.9 points in the control group. The paired
Email Corresponding : sample t-test confirmed a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the experimental
- and post-test scores. Moreover, the independent t-test indicated a
lesianggrainiayra@[Link] significant difference in post-test results between both groups. Questionnaire
analysis revealed that students responded positively to AR-based learning, noting
increased motivation, enjoyment, and confidence. These findings suggest that AR
is an effective tool for enhancing speaking skills by providing interactive,
contextual, and immersive learning experiences. The study recommends further
exploration of AR in other language skills and diverse classroom contexts.

Keywords: Augmented Reality, Speaking Skill, English Learning,

Motivation, Technology in Education

1. INTRODUCTION
authentic communication opportunities and a
Among the core skills in acquiring the learning environment that does not sufficiently
English language, speaking is acknowledged as foster oral proficiency. Conventional
both vital and particularly difficult, notably in instructional approaches, including
foreign language learning settings. It requires memorization techniques and grammar-based
learners not only to master vocabulary and exercises, often emphasize linguistic accuracy
grammar but also to produce language fluently more than communicative fluency, which in turn
and appropriately in real-time interactions (Jaya hinders learners' ability to engage in spontaneous
et al., 2025b). According to Brown (2019), spoken interactions (Richards & Schmidt, 2017;
speaking is an interactive process of constructing Ehsan et al., 2019; Madhavi et al., 2023).
meaning that involves producing, receiving, and Furthermore, speaking anxiety is a common
processing information. However, in many EFL issue among students, caused by fear of making
classrooms, speaking is often neglected due to mistakes and being judged by peers. Horwitz et
the dominance of teacher-centered approaches al. (2018) emphasized that foreign language
and written assessments. This imbalance leads to anxiety can severely hinder speaking
performance, even among students with adequate
and their productive speaking ability linguistic knowledge. These issues highlight the
Many Indonesian EFL students find urgent need for innovative approaches that
speaking activities intimidating due to a lack of promote a more interactive, meaningful, and
supportive speaking environment.
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 468
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM

Technological advancements in through AR-based instruction. The

education offer promising solutions, one research is guided by the following
of which is Augmented Reality (AR). AR questions: (1) Does the use of AR
combines virtual content with the real technology significantly enhance
world, giving learners the opportunity to
interact with digital objects as they students perceive the use of AR in
appear in real-time situations. In speaking instruction? The findings of this
language education, AR can create research are expected to contribute to the
immersive and context-rich scenarios development of innovative, technology-
thatresemble real-life communication, based EFL pedagogies and offer practical
implications for integrating immersive
engagement (Lubis & Wangid, 2019; tools like AR into language classrooms.
Williyan et al., 2024). For instance,
students can engage in simulated Research Hypotheses:
conversations with virtual characters or H : There is no significant difference in
practice speaking in a variety of
situational contexts, such as ordering after the use of Augmented Reality
food or navigating directions. This aligns (AR).
with constructivist learning principles, H : The use of Augmented Reality (AR)
where students actively construct
knowledge through experiential learning speaking ability.
and contextualized interactions (Bahufite
et al., 2023).
Despite its growing application, 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
empirical research on the impact of AR 2.1
specifically on speaking skills remains
Speaking is commonly described as
limited, especially in the Indonesian
the oral, real time construction of
secondary school setting. Most existing
meaning through sound. Bygate (2018)
studies have focused on vocabulary
emphasises its auditory motor nature,
learning, reading comprehension, or
defining it as the production of speech
general motivation, leaving a research
signals intended to generate verbal
gap in the domain of productive oral
responses in a listener. McKay (2018)
language skills (Ditania, 2022; Yahya et
later refined this view, portraying
al., 2019; Jaya et al., 2025a).
Furthermore, while the motivational and
constructing meaning that involves
cognitive benefits of AR have been
producing, receiving and processing
acknowledged, few studies have
Beyond the mechanical act
AR-assisted speaking instruction, which of articulation, speaking is embedded in
is critical for determining the long-term social context. Brown (2019) argues that
form and meaning are shaped by
viability of this technology in classrooms.
Exploring both the effectiveness and the
and the physical setting, making speaking
learner experience will provide a more
inherently situated and co constructed.
holistic understanding of A
Consequently, successful instruction
language education.
must link language forms to the authentic
Therefore, this study aims to
situations in which learners will use
investigate the effectiveness of
them.
Augmented Reality in improving
For Indonesian EFL learners, the
their perceptions of learning speaking gap between classroom talk and
real world interaction is acute; students

INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 469
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM

often succeed in receptive tasks yet regimes that prioritise written accuracy
hesitate to speak spontaneously. Goh and also curb opportunities for authentic talk.
Anne (2018) note that explicit planning, Hughes (2019) add that many teachers
rehearsal and reflection cycles are needed lack explicit models for designing task
cycles that move students from controlled
current performance and target practice to free interaction, leading to an
competence and to transform declarative over reliance on chorus drills or
knowledge into procedural skill. individual monologues.
Researchers generally cluster the Finally, resource scarcity (e.g.,
sub skills of speaking into five technology, quiet spaces, fluent
overlapping components: fluency, interlocutors) means learners rarely
accuracy, vocabulary, grammar receive immediate, contingent feedback.
and pronunciation. Nation and Addressing these challenges calls for
Newton (2020) propose that pedagogical innovation such as
a balanced oral programme should immersive technologies that can
cycle learners through meaning focused scaffold practice, reduce anxiety through
input, meaning focused output,language simulation and multiply exposure to
focused study and fluency development meaningful interaction.
each strand drawing on these components
to different degrees. 2.2
Fluency and accuracy often operate Xu (2024) foundational survey
in creative tension. The fluency strand defines AR systems as those that (1)
encourages quick, message oriented combine real and virtual content, (2)
speech with familiar language, whereas allow real time interaction and (3)
the accuracy strand zooms in on precise register both worlds in three dimensional
grammar and lexis. Sherine et al. (2020) space. Lubis and Wangid (2019) extends
stress that fluency activities must be this, framing AR as a subset of mixed
meaning centred, draw on prior reality that enhances face to face
knowledge and use time pressure so that collaboration by overlaying digital
automaticity rather than explicit rule information onto the shared physical
application drives production. workspace.
Pronunciation underpins In educational discourse, Johnson
intelligibility, while vocabulary and and Johnson (2019) describe AR as a
grammar provide the raw materials and bridge between experiential and symbolic
ordering rules for expression. Together, learning, enabling students to manipulate
the five components interact multimodal representations that would
dynamically: a breakdown in one (e.g., otherwise be abstract or invisible. This
limited vocabulary) may force slower
processing and thus reduce fluency. rather than purely technical, affordances.
Instruction therefore needs to integrate Real time interaction. Users can touch,
them rather than treat them as isolated rotate or verbally query virtual objects,
hurdles. and see instantaneous system responses
The most frequently reported essential for maintaining immersion and
barrier is foreign language anxiety. supporting conversational turn taking in
Horwitz et al. (2018) seminal work language tasks.
shows that fear of negative evaluation Three dimensional visualisation.
and communication apprehension 3 D models allow learners to perceive
significantly depress oral performance, spatial relations, body language or
even among otherwise capable learners. cultural artefacts from multiple angles,
Structural constraints large classes, enriching pragmatic and paralinguistic
limited contact hours and assessment

INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 470
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM

awareness. Spatial alignment

(registration). Precise tracking ensures
micro practice and push notification
their real world referents. Accurate reminders. Darsih and Asikin (2020)
registration is vital for activities such as argues that MALL shifts control of time,
situational dialogues in a mapped place and pace to the learner, fostering
classroom or cityscape, where positional autonomy.
The latest wave incorporates AR
and Virtual Reality (VR), which
Early classroom trials showed that Pokrivcakova (2019) position as
AR books and tabletop simulations extending CALL/MALL by embedding
increased motivation and conceptual learners in multimodal, context rich
understanding in science and social environments that blur boundaries
studies (Luckin & Holmes, 2016). In between classroom and community.
language education, commercial products
such as Mondly AR let users practise Multimedia Learning posits that learners
dialogues with life sized virtual construct deeper understanding when
interlocutors, combining speech words and images are integrated under
recognition, visual prompts and conditions that manage cognitive load.
immediate corrective feedback. AR, by superimposing visual scaffolds
e.g., directly onto physical referents,
Google Lens translation overlays
illustrate how incidental language and modality principles in situated
learning can occur as learners explore language tasks.
their surroundings and see real time Dash (2022) highlight how digital
annotations. Content authoring platforms media reshape contexts of expression,
like Zappar and its WebAR toolkits enabling multimodal, audience aware
enable teachers to create custom communication and collaborative
interactive scenes, from meaning making. When learners record,
vocabulary labelled classrooms to annotate and share AR experiences, they
narrative choose your own adventure engage in authentic discourse
tasks, without needing specialist coding communities that extend beyond the
skills. classroom.
By merging CALL/MALL
infrastructures with AR interfaces,
2.3 Technology Enhanced Language teachers can orchestrate active,
Learning contextual learning cycles: pre task
Computer Assisted Language vocabulary review on mobile apps,
Learning (CALL) emerged in the 1960s in situ AR role plays, and post task
and is broadly defined as the exploration reflection through multimedia journals.
of computer applications to support Such integration addresses the persistent
language teaching and learning (Amin, gap between decontextualised practice
2023). Warschauer and Kern (2017) and real world speaking performance
noted earlier.
multimedia and Internet connectivity,
linking discrete skill drills to
communicative tasks. 3. METHODS
Mobile Assisted Language 3.1 Research Approach
Learning (MALL) leverages portability; This study adopts a quantitative
Kukulska-Hulme (2020) defines it as approach as it focuses on measuring the

INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 471
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM

objective effect of Augmented Reality five core aspects: fluency, accuracy,

vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation,
perceptions. The research utilizes a quasi- adapted from (Brown, 2019). Each
experimental method with a pre-test and performance is recorded and scored
post-test control group design, following independently by two trained raters, with
the framework proposed by (Sugiyono, inter-rater reliability calculated using the
2021). In this design, two groups an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC).
experimental group receiving AR-based
instruction and a control group receiving 2) Student Perception Questionnaire
conventional instruction are administered A Likert-scale questionnaire was
a pre-test before the treatment and a post-
test after the intervention. This design perceptions of AR-based learning. It
allows the researcher to compare learning consists of 20 items with a 5-point scale
outcomes while controlling for external
variables and identifying causal
relationships between AR integration and as motivation, engagement, usability, and
speaking performance. perceived effectiveness (Dornyei &
Taguchi, 2019). Construct validity is
examined via exploratory factor analysis,
3.2 Population and Sample
and reliability is assessed using
The population of this study
comprises all Grade XI students at SMA
Negeri 3 Pagaralam during the
3) Observation Checklist
2025/2026 academic year. This group
An observation sheet was used to
was selected as they have already
acquired the foundational knowledge in
learning activities, based on categories
English and are ready for technology-
such as attention, persistence, verbal
enhanced instruction. The sample
participation, and affective response. The
consists of two purposively selected
instrument is adapted from Van Maanen
classes from Grade XI, with one class
(2025) engagement framework and is
serving as the experimental group and the
used to triangulate the findings from test
other as the control group, each
scores and questionnaire results.
containing 30 students (total n = 60). The
purposive sampling technique was used
3.4 Data Collection Techniques
to ensure equivalence in academic
Data collection was conducted
background between the two groups,
through three main methods:
based on prior English achievement. This
1) Oral Tests (Speaking Performance):
approach increases the validity of the
The pre-test was conducted at the
comparison between treatments and
beginning of the instructional period
minimizes selection bias (Fraenkel et al.,
(week 0), and the post-test was
2014).
administered at the end (week 8).
mances
3.3 Research Instrument
were recorded using high-quality
1) Speaking Test
smartphone audio, and the
The main instrument is a speaking
recordings were scored
performance test administered as both
independently by two raters to
pre-test and post-test. The test tasks
ensure objectivity (Mackey & Gass,
students to produce a guided monologue
2021).
for approximately two minutes.
2) Questionnaire Distribution: The
Assessment follows a rubric based on
perception questionnaires were

INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 472
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM

administered online via Google

Forms or manually, depending on
student access. The questionnaire 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
was given after the post-test in week This chapter presents the research
8. findings, including the analysis of
3) Classroom Observation: The -test and post-test speaking
researcher or assistant recorded scores, as well as their perceptions of
ngagement learning through Augmented Reality (AR)
during all learning sessions (eight in technology. The data were analyzed both
total) using a structured checklist. descriptively and inferentially to
Field notes were also taken to d
support the interpretation of speaking performance and the
quantitative results. significance of the treatment effect. The
findings are then discussed in relation to
3.5 Data Analysis Techniques relevant theories and previous research.
1) Parametric Assumption Testing
Before analyzing treatment effects,
data were tested for normality (using 4.1 Descriptive Statistics
Shapiro-Wilk Test, appropriate for This section presents the
small samples) and homogeneity of descriptive s
speaking scores from both the
(Field, 2024). experimental and control groups,
measured before and after the
2) Treatment Effect Analysis intervention. The purpose of this analysis
A paired-sample t-test was used to is to compare the average performance of
compare pre- and post-test scores the two groups and observe any
within each group (experimental improvements in speaking ability that
and control). occurred during the study. The data
An independent-sample t-test was include mean scores, gain scores, and
conducted to compare the mean initial indications of learning differences
difference (gain scores) between between groups prior to inferential
the two groups. testing.
1) Pre-test & Post-test
measure effect size, providing Table 1. The improvement of each
insight into the magnitude of the learner from pre-test to post-test
treatment effect (Lakens, 2018). (Control group)
3) Perception Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics (mean,
standard deviation, frequency, and
percentages) were used to

Categories were interpreted as

(Sugiyono, 2021).
A Pearson correlation analysis
was conducted to explore the

perceptions and their speaking

performance gains.
Student Pre test Post test Gain
1 64.2 67.1 2.9
2 62.1 65.3 3.2
INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH
SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 473
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM
3 66.0 69.0 3.0
4 63.8 67.4 3.6
5 61.4 65.2 3.8
6 62.5 68.3 5.8
7 63.2 66.8 3.6
8 66.7 71.0 4.3
9 64.3 67.9 3.6
10 60.6 64.0 3.4
11 64.1 66.2 2.1
12 65.0 68.1 3.1
13 63.0 66.5 3.5
14 62.6 65.1 2.5
15 59.3 63.0 3.7

INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 474
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM
10 69.3 80.1 10.8
16 60.8 64.4 3.6 11 61.3 74.2 13.0
17 66.2 69.0 2.8 12 61.3 72.0 10.7
18 63.5 66.3 2.8 13 66.9 76.5 9.6
19 61.7 65.0 3.3 14 49.7 58.5 8.8
20 64.6 67.2 2.6 15 51.2 55.3 4.1
21 65.3 69.5 4.2 16 60.5 67.6 7.1
22 62.4 66.0 3.6 17 56.9 65.1 8.2
23 63.9 67.1 3.2 18 67.5 81.7 14.2
24 59.8 62.7 2.9 19 57.7 69.1 11.4
25 60.2 63.6 3.4 20 53.7 56.6 2.9
26 66.0 69.0 3.0 21 76.7 88.0 11.3
27 61.3 64.2 2.9 22 63.2 71.7 8.5
28 63.4 67.8 4.4 23 65.5 72.8 7.3
29 64.0 67.5 3.5 24 53.6 66.0 12.4
30 62.5 66.1 3.6 25 60.6 74.8 14.2
Mean 63.2 67.1 3.9 26 65.9 79.6 13.7
27 55.8 62.4 6.6
Table 1 shows the improvement of 28 68.0 76.8 8.8
each student in the control group from 29 60.2 71.5 11.3
pre-test to post-test. The average pre-test 30 62.7 76.6 13.9
score was 63.2, and the average post-test Mean 63.5 73 9.5
score increased to 67.1, resulting in a
mean gain of 3.9 points. Although there Table 2 displays the speaking performance
was a positive improvement in speaking of students in the experimental group, assessed
performance, the increase was relatively through both pre-test and post-test scores
modest, indicating that conventional following instruction with Augmented Reality
learning methods led to limited progress (AR) integration. The mean score prior to the
compared to the experimental group. intervention was 63.5, which rose to 73.0 after
Table 2. The improvement of each the treatment, reflecting an average improvement
learner from pre-test to post-test of 9.5 points. This notable gain
(Experiment group) underscores the
Student Pre test Post test Gain
1 69.0 76.6 7.6 oral proficiency. In comparison to the
2 63.9 81.3 17.4 control group, the experimental group
3 70.2 80.1 9.9 demonstrated a substantially greater
4 77.2 83.0 5.8
5 63.1 76.4 13.3
improvement, implying that AR-
6 63.1 68.2 5.1 supported instruction fostered a more
7 77.6 88.5 10.9 stimulating and effective context for
8 71.1 73.3 2.2 enhancing speaking abilities.
9 61.2 65.9 4.7

2) Normality and HomogeneityTest

Table 3. Normality Test

INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 475
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM

The findings from the One-Sample conform to a normal distribution, thereby

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test reveal that the satisfying the assumption of normality.
pre-test and post-test scores for both the As a result, the use of parametric
experimental and control groups yielded procedures namely, the paired-sample t-
significance values of 0.200 (p > 0.05). test and the independent-sample t-test is
These results confirm that the data deemed statistically appropriate.

Table 4. Homogeneity Test

Table 4 displays the outcomes of equivalent in each case. Consequently,

the assumption of homogeneity of
variances for both the pre-test and post- variance is satisfied, thereby validating
test scores across the experimental and the use of parametric statistical methods
control groups. The obtained significance such as the independent-sample t-test for
values were 0.158 for the pre-test and subsequent analysis.
0.274 for the post-test, both exceeding
the conventional threshold of 0.05. These 3) Validity and Reliability
findings suggest that the variance
between the two groups is statistically

Table 5. Validity Data

The item total correlation analysis

shows that all 20 questionnaire items
exceed the common validity threshold

INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 476
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM

statement has a meaningful positive

relationship with the overall scale score. for the 20-item questionnaire. This value
Hence, every item is classified as valid, surpasses the widely recognized
confirming that the instrument reliably minimum threshold of 0.70, signifying a
measures the intended construct and can satisfactory level of internal consistency
be retained for further analysis. among the items. Accordingly, the
instrument can be regarded as a reliable
Table 6. Validity Data
perceptions within the context of this
study.

4) Paired Sample and Indepenedent T-

As reflected in Table 6, the Test
reliability analysis produced a

Table 7. Paired Sample T-Test

The analysis using the Paired intervention (p < 0.05). Moreover, the
Samples t-Test revealed a mean score 95% confidence interval for the mean
increase of 9.520 between the pre-test difference, ranging from -10.910 to -
and post-test results in the experimental 8.130, excludes zero, reinforcing that the
group. The computed t-value was -14.010 observed effect is unlikely due to random
with 29 degrees of freedom, and the variation. These findings suggest that the
associated p-value (Sig. 2-tailed) was integration of Augmented Reality
0.000, indicating a statistically significant significantly contributed to the
improvement of students' oral
abilities following the AR-based performance.

Table 8. Independent T-Test

INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 477
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM

The findings from the independent perception indicates that AR not only
samples t-test conducted on the post-test enhances language performance but also
data reveal a statistically significant fosters a more supportive and stimulating
difference in speaking performance learning atmosphere, which can
between the experimental and control
groups. With a p-value of 0.000 (p < and active participation in speaking
0.05), the result confirms that the activities.
observed disparity in mean scores is
unlikely to have occurred by chance. On
average, students in the experimental Discussion
group outperformed their counterparts by The findings of this study
6.463 points, with the 95% confidence demonstrate that the use of Augmented
interval for the mean difference ranging Reality (AR) significantly enhances
from 3.294 to 9.633. These results affirm reflected in
that the implementation of Augmented the increased post-test scores and positive
Reality (AR) in instruction had a student perceptions. This result aligns
substantial and statistically significant with previous studies suggesting that AR
offers context-rich, interactive learning
Moreover, the paired samples t-test environments that promote language
for the experimental group yielded a acquisition (Ntumba et al., 2023). By
significance level of 0.000, which is well providing real-time visual and auditory
below the accepted alpha threshold of stimuli, AR helps reduce speaking
0.05. This outcome demonstrates a anxiety and supports learners in
significant improvement in students' constructing more meaningful
speaking abilities following the AR- communication.
based intervention. Consequently, the Furthermore, the significant gain in
null hypothesis (H ) is rejected in favor the experimental group compared to the
of the alternative hypothesis (H ), control group reinforces the idea that
confirming that AR technology traditional methods may be less effective
meaningfully enhances oral language in fostering speaking fluency and
performance. Taken together, these confidence. According to Xu (2024), AR
statistical findings underscore the blends digital information with the real
pedagogical potential of AR in fostering world, allowing learners to interact with
speaking skill development in EFL virtual objects in real-time, which can
contexts. simulate authentic communicative
scenarios. This immersive experience
helps students internalize vocabulary,
Descriptive Analysis grammar, and pronunciation more
Based on the analysis of the naturally.
questionnaire results, the majority of In addition, the questionnaire
students reported feeling more motivated, results show that most students felt more
engaged, and confident when learning motivated and confident during AR-
speaking skills through the use of based learning sessions. This is consistent
Augmented Reality (AR). The interactive with Williyan et al. (2024), who noted
and immersive features of AR made the that AR applications in language
learning experience more enjoyable and education contribute to increased student
realistic, helping students to better engagement, motivation, and self-
visualize context and practice speaking in efficacy. The positive emotional response
simulated environments. This positive plays a crucial role in language learning,
as affective factors like enjoyment and

INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 478
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM

confidence can e engagement and language development

willingness to communicate (Dornyei & in various classroom contexts.
Taguchi, 2019).
In conclusion, the integration of
AR in English speaking instruction not 6. REFERENCES
Amin, M. Y. M. (2023). AI and Chat GPT in
proficiency but also enhances their Language Teaching: Enhancing EFL
emotional and psychological readiness to Classroom Support and Transforming
engage in communicative tasks. These Assessment Techniques. International
results support the growing body of Journal of Higher Education
literature that advocates for the use of Pedagogies, 4(4), 1 15.
emerging technologies to enrich language [Link]
learning experiences. Bahufite, E., Kasonde-
Akakandelwa, A. (2023). The

academic achievement due to the use

5. CONCLUSION
of constructivist methods in physical
This study concludes that the use of science and their self-esteem in
Augmented Reality (AR) has a zambian secondary schools. Social
significant and positive impact on Sciences and Humanities Open, 8(1),
100632.
skills. The experimental group, which [Link]
0632
experienced AR-based learning, showed
Brown, J. . (2019). The Elements of
a substantial increase in post-test scores Language Curriculum: A Systematic
compared to the control group. Approach to Program Development.
Additionally, student responses from the Heinle & Heinle.
questionnaire revealed that AR fostered Bygate, M. (2018). Speaking. Oxford
greater motivation, confidence, and University Press.
enthusiasm in learning. The interactive Darsih, E., & Asikin, N. A. (2020). Mobile
and immersive nature of AR created a Assisted Language Learning: Efl
more engaging and contextual Learners Perceptions Toward the Use
environment, allowing learners to of Mobile Applications in Learning
practice speaking more effectively and English. English Review: Journal of
English Education, 8(2), 19.
meaningfully.
[Link]
Based on these findings, it is 9
recommended that educators integrate Dash, B. B. (2022). Digital Tools for
AR technology into English language Teaching and Learning English
teaching, particularly in speaking lessons, Language in 21 st Century.
to enhance learning outcomes. Future International Journal Of English and
Studies, 4(2), 8 13.
-term
[Link]
effects on language retention, its .4202
application in other language skills (such Ditania, S. (2022).
as listening or writing), or its impact Problem In Speaking Skill Faced By
across different educational levels. The Eleventh Grade Of Social Science
Furthermore, studies could investigate Of Sma Negeri 3 Pekanbaru In
the combination of AR with other Academic Year 2019/2020
pedagogical models, such as Project- [Universitas Islam Riau].
Based Learning or Communicative [Link]
Language Teaching, to optimize student Dornyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2019).
Questionnaires in second language
research: Construction, administration,

INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 479
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM

and processing (2nd ed.). Routledge. effect sizes to facilitate cumulative

[Link] science: A practical primer for t-tests
9780203864739 and ANOVAs. Frontiers in
Ehsan, N., Vida, S., & Mehdi, N. (2019). Psychology, 4, 863.
The impact of cooperative learning on [Link]
developing speaking ability and 63
motivation toward learning English. Lubis, A. H., & Wangid, M. N. (2019).
In Journal of language and education. Augmented Reality-Assisted Pictorial
[Link]. Storybook: Media to Enhance
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using Discipline Character of Primary
IBM SPSS statistics. Sage Publications. School Students. ERIC Journal, 6(1),
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. h. 11 20.
(2014). How To Design And Evaluate [Link]
Research In Education (Eighth Edi). Luckin, R., & Holmes, W. (2016).
McGraw-Hill Education. Intelligence Unleashed: An argument
Goh, C. C. M., & Anne, B. (2018). Teaching for AI in Education. In UCL
(First). Knowledge Lab: London, UK. .
Cambridge University Press. [Link]
Horwitz, E., Tallon, M., & Luo, H. (2018). /corporate/global/pearson-dot-
Foreign Language Anxiety. In In com/files/innovation/Intelligence-
Cassady, Jerrell, C. (ed.), Anxiety in [Link]
schools: the causes, consequences, Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2021). Second
and solutions for academic anxiety language research: Methodology and
(pp. 96- 118). Peter Lang Publishing. design. Routledge.
Hughes, R. (2019). Teaching and Madhavi, E., Sivapurapu, L., Koppula, V.,
Researching Speaking (Second). Esther Rani, P. B., & Sreehari, V.
Jaya, A., Hartono, R., Wahyuni, S., &
Yulianto, H. J. (2025a). From silent to Speaking Skills using ICT and AI
supreme: The transformative power of Tools. Journal of Advanced Research
project-based learning on language in Applied Sciences and Engineering
learners. Multidisciplinary Reviews, Technology, 32(2), 142 153.
8(8), 2025258. [Link]
[Link] 2.142153
258 McKay, Sandra Lee. (2018). English As an
Jaya, A., Hartono, R., Wahyuni, S., & International Language: What It Is and
Yulianto, H. J. (2025b). Los efectos What It Means For Pedagogy. RELC
de la estrategia de aprendizaje basado Journal, 49(1), 9 23.
en proyectos con actividad física en [Link]
función del género sobre el 8817
rendimiento escolar y la confianza en Nation, I. S. ., & Newton, J. (2020).
sí mismos de los estudiantes. Retos: Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and
Nuevas Tendencias En Educación Speaking. Routledge.
Física, Deporte y Recreación, 66, Ntumba, C., Aguayo, S., & Maina, K.
349 360. (2023). Revolutionizing Retail: A
[Link] Mini Review of E-
067 commerce Evolution. Journal of Digital
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2019). Marketing and Communication,
Cooperation and the Use of 3(2), 100 110.
Technology in Education. Journal of [Link]
Educational Psychology, 111(4), 567 Pokrivcakova, S. (2019). Preparing teachers
578. for the application of AI-powered
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2020). Mobile-Assisted technologies in foreign language
Language Learning. Cambridge education. Journal of Language and
University Press. Cultural Education, 7(3), 135 153.
Lakens, D. (2018). Calculating and reporting [Link]
0025
INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH
SPEAKING LEARNING
 1
Lesi Anggraini, 2Apriana 480
Vol 8, No 2 (2025): ESTEEM

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2017).

Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics (4th
ed.). Routledge.
[Link]
9781315833835
Sherine, A., Seshagiri, A. V. S., & Sastry, M.
M. (2020). Impact of whatsapp
interaction on improving L2 speaking
skills. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning,
15(3), 250 259.
[Link]
34
Sugiyono. (2021). Metode Penelitian
Pendidikan (Kuantitatif, Kualitatif,
Kombinasi, R&D dan Penelitian
Pendidikan) (A. Nuryanto (ed.);
Kedua). ALFABETA, CV.
Van Maanen, J. (2025). Reviewed Works:
Participant Observation. James P.
SpradleyThe Ethnographic Interview.
James P. Spradley. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 25(3), 526 530.
[Link]
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. K. (2017).
Network-Based Language Teaching:
Concepts and Practice. Cambridge
University Press.
Williyan, A., Fitriati, S. W., Pratama, H., &
Sakhiyya, Z. (2024). AI as co-creator:

collaboration with ai in content

development. Teaching English with
Technology, 24(2), 5 21.
[Link]
DX3699/RZOH5366
Xu, Z. (2024). AI in education: Enhancing
learning experiences and student
outcomes. Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Signal
Processing and Machine Learning,
51(1), 104 111.
[Link]
2721/51/20241187
Yahya, Y., Yusrizal, Y., & Kurniawan, R.
(2019). Technology in Teaching
Speaking Skill: a Review of Current
Literature. Journal Of Language
Education and Development (JLed),
2(1), 242 251.
[Link]

INTEGRATION OF AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH

SPEAKING LEARNING