Enhancing English Speaking Vocabulary through an Augmented Reality Game-Based Learning Framework Guided by Merrill’s Principles of Instruction

This study investigates the pedagogical effectiveness of incorporating Augmented Reality (AR) and gamified learning into an extended instructional framework based on Merrill's First Principles of Instruction to improve English speaking vocabulary acquisition among certificate-level learners in Sri Lanka. Traditional language training has persistent constraints, such as poor learner engagement, limited contextual immersion, and inadequate personalization, necessitating creative pedagogical approaches that promote active speaking growth.
To fill this gap, the study creates and empirically tests an AR-enhanced gamified framework that operationalizes problem-centered learning, prior knowledge activation, demonstration, application, and integration, while also incorporating structured peer collaboration, guided facilitation, and sensitivity to learners' linguistic backgrounds. A positivist, deductive research approach was used, combining a structured 5-point Likert-scale survey delivered to 276 students from two metropolitan campuses with a six-week longitudinal pretest-posttest experimental design.
Data was examined using SPSS, which included reliability testing (Cronbach's α > 0.7), correlation analysis, multiple regression, and paired sample t-tests. The study found a strong correlation (adjusted R² = 0.928) between AR-supported learning effectiveness and instructional factors like tool quality, technical competence, peer collaboration, teacher guidance, instructional relevance, and family linguistic background. Age had no significant influence.
The post-intervention results show statistically significant gains in speaking fluency and vocabulary accuracy. The study provides a theoretically informed and scalable instructional strategy for advancing immersive language learning methods in technology-enhanced educational settings.

Augmented Reality, Gamified Learning, Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction, English Speaking Vocabulary, Technology-Enhanced Learning

1. Ahmadi, D. M. R. (2018). The use of technology in English language learning: A literature review. International Journal of Research in English Education, 3(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.3.2.115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Argo, J. J., & Dahl, D. W. (2020). Social influence in the retail context: A contemporary review of the literature. Journal of Retailing, 96(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.12.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Badali, M., Hatami, J., Farrokhnia, M., & Noroozi, O. (2022). The effects of using Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction on learning and satisfaction in MOOC. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(2), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1813187 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Biggs, H. M., Harris, J. B., Breakwell, L., Dahlgren, F. S., Abedi, G. R., Szablewski, C. M., Drobeniuc, J., Bustamante, N. D., Almendares, O., Schnall, A. H., & Gilani, Z. (2020). Estimated community seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies — two Georgia counties, April 28–May 3, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(29), 965–970. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6929a5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cho, J. H. (2018). A study on the factors influencing the satisfaction and effectiveness of smart learning in the view of HRD in company. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 19(3), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2018.19.3.468 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Demir, K. A. (2021). Smart education framework. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00170-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Evans, M. (Ed.). (2009). Foreign language learning with digital technology. A&C Black. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Gambo, Y., & Shakir, M. Z. (2022). Evaluating students’ experiences in self-regulated smart learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 1–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ho, P. V. P., Thien, N. M., An, N. T. M., & Vy, N. N. H. (2020). The effects of using games on EFL students’ speaking performances. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(1), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v10n1p183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hosseindoost, S., Khan, Z. H., & Majedi, H. (2022). A shift from traditional learning to e-learning: Advantages and disadvantages. Archives of Neuroscience, 9(2), e122804. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kang, N. (2015). The comparison between regular and flipped classrooms for EFL Korean adult learners. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 1–28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ko, M. H. (2017). Learner perspectives regarding device type in technology-assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 844–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1367310 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Lai, C. (2013). A framework for developing self-directed technology use for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 100–122. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lee, H., & Lee, J. H. (2022). The effects of robot-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 35, 100425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100425 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Li, Z., & Qiu, Z. (2018). How does family background affect children’s educational achievement? Evidence from Contemporary China. The Journal of Chinese Sociology, 5(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-018-0083-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Liew, B. T., Kang, M., Yoo, E., & You, J. (2013). Investigating the determinants of mobile learning acceptance in Korea. In Proceedings of EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2013 (pp. 1424–1430). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Omidinia, S., Masrom, M., & Selamat, H. (2012). Determinants of smart school system success: A case study of Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research, 4(1), 17–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Qin, Y. (2022). Analysis of online learning questionnaire based on network information technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovative Computing (pp. 395–401). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Singleton, D., & Leśniewska, J. (2021). The critical period hypothesis for L2 acquisition: An unfalsifiable embarrassment? Languages, 6(3), 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6030149 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Thomas, L. J., Parsons, M., & Whitcombe, D. (2019). Assessment in smart learning environments: Psychological factors affecting perceived learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Thompson, P. (2021). Learning by doing. In Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 429–476). Elsevier. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Truong, M. T., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2019). Implementing Merrill's first principles of instruction: Practice and identification. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 9(2), 14–28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Tryfonova, Y. (2021). Age and critical period hypothesis. [Unpublished manuscript or source as cited; replace with full publication details if available]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ventura, R., Roca-Cuberes, C., & Corral-Rodríguez, A. (2018). Interactive digital communication: Assessment of academic competencies and professional profiles by communication professionals, faculty and students. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 73, 331–351. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Wang, S., Shi, G., Lu, M., Lin, R., & Yang, J. (2021). Determinants of active online learning in the smart learning environment: An empirical study with PLS-SEM. Sustainability, 13(17), 9923. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179923 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Wu, X. V., Chi, Y., Panneer Selvam, U., Devi, M. K., Wang, W., Chan, Y. S., Wee, F. C., Zhao, S., Sehgal, V., & Ang, N. K. E. (2020). A clinical teaching blended learning program to enhance registered nurse preceptors’ teaching competencies: Pretest and posttest study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(4), e18604. https://doi.org/10.2196/18604 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study