Educational institutions around the world were forced to suspend traditional classroom activities as part of the preventive actions taken to limit the spread of COVID-19. This has led to an increased interest in using e-learning, and the use of computers, mobile devices, and technology in general has become crucial across the curricula. Three-dimensional (3D) virtual environments are a good choice for this purpose. E-scaffolding is a way to provide temporary support and direction to learners during the learning process to help them to complete new learning tasks and to encourage them to build knowledge by themselves.
4. Romero-Rodríguez, J.M.; Aznar-Díaz, I.; Hinojo-Lucena, F.J.; Gómez-García, G. Mobile learning in higher education: Structural equation model for good teaching practices. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 91761–91769. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2994967.
5. Palincsar, A.S.; Fitzgerald, M.S.; Marcum, M.B.; Sherwood, C.A. Examining the work of “scaffolding” in theory and practice: A case study of 6th graders and their teacher interacting with one another, an ambitious science curriculum, and mobile devices. J. Educ. Res. 2018, 90, 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.11.006.
6. Bailenson, J.N. Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Mind Behav. 2021, 2, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030.
7. Bennett, A.A.; Campion, E.D.; Keeler, K.R.; Keener, S.K. Videoconference fatigue? Exploring changes in fatigue after videoconference meetings during COVID-19. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 106, 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000906.
8. Wiederhold, B.K. Connecting through technology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Avoiding “Zoom Fatigue”. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2020, 23, 437–438. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.29188.bkw.
9. Williams, N. Working through COVID-19: ‘Zoom’ gloom and ’Zoom’ fatigue. Med. 2021, 71, 164. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab041.
10. Golu, F. Tech Fatigue-A new pandemic. Studia Dr. 2021, 12, 85–87. https://doi.org/10.47040/sdpsych.v12i2.129.
11. Krzic, M.; Wilson, J.; Hoffman, D. Scaffolding student learning: Forest floor example. Sci. Educ. 2018, 47, 17. https://doi.org/10.2134/csa2018.63.0715.
12. Loparev, A. The Impact of Collaborative Scaffolding in Educational Video Games on the Collaborative Support Skills of Middle School Students; University of Rochester: Rochester, NY, USA, 2016. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/docview/1794167603?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true (accessed on 26 May 2021).
13. Amelia, R.; Rofiki, I.; Tortop, H.S.; Abah, J.A. Pre-service teachers’ scientific explanation with e-scaffolding in blended learning. Ilm. Pendidik. Fis. Al-Biruni 2020, 9, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v9i1.5091.
14. Ebadi, S.; Beigzadeh, M. The effect of teacher scaffolding vs. peer scaffolding on EFL learners’ reading comprehension development. J. Engl. Educ. 2015, 4, 105–116. Available online: http://www.ijee.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/11.86141504.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2022).
15. Kivi, P.J.; Namaziandost, E.; Alamdari, E.F.; Saenko, N.R.; Inga-Arias, M.; Fuster-Guillén, D.; Sirisakpanich, D.; Nasirin, C. The Comparative Effects of Teacher Versus Peer-Scaffolding on EFL Learners’ Incidental Vocabulary Learning and Reading Comprehension: A Socio-Cultural Perspective. Psycholinguist. Res. 2021, 50, 1031–1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09800-4.
16. Karimi, L.; Jalilvand, M. The effect of peer and teacher scaffolding on the reading comprehension of EFL learners in asymmetrical and symmetrical groups. Teach. Lang. Ski. 2014, 32, 1–17. Available online: https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_1860_7d531b852ed556ae80d9ed4d2db4c077.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2021).
17. Kim, N.J.; Belland, B.R.; Axelrod, D. Scaffolding for optimal challenge in K–12 problem-based learning. J. Probl. Based Learn. 2018, 13, 1831–1834. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1712.
18. Könings, K.D.; van Zundert, M.; van Merriënboer, J.J. Scaffolding peer-assessment skills: Risk of interference with learning domain-specific skills? Instr. 2019, 60, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.11.007.
19. Mansouri, S.; Heidar, D.M. Peer/teacher technology-enhanced scaffolding through process approach and Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge: A probe into self-regulation. Engl. A Second. Lang. (Former. J. Teach. Lang. Ski.) 2019, 38, 189–223. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2020.34379.2717.
20. Sabet, M.K.; Tahriri, A.; Pasand, P.G. The impact of peer scaffolding through process approach on EFL learners’ academic writing fluency. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2013, 3, 1893. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.10.1893–1901.
21. Saleh, A.; Silver, C.H.; Chen, Y.; Shanahan, K.; Rowe, J.; Lester, J. Scaffolding Peer Facilitation in Computer-Supported Problem-Based Learning Environments. In Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018; Kay, J., Luckin, R., Eds.; International Society of the Learning Sciences: London, UK, 2018; Volume 3. https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2018.1831.
23. Sun, L.; Ruokamo, H.; Siklander, P.; Li, B.; Devlin, K. Primary school students’ perceptions of scaffolding in digital game-based learning in mathematics. Cult. Soc. Interact. 2021, 28, 100457.
24. Abune, A.A. Effects of Peer Scaffolding on Students’ Grammar Proficiency Development. Online Submiss. 2019, 7, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.7176/jlll/58-02.
25. AlThiyabi, M.S.; Al-Bargi, A. The effect of teacher scaffolding on Learning English as a foreign language at King Abdulaziz University: A classroom discourse analysis. J. Educ. Investig. 2016, 3, 1–20. Available online: http://www.ijeionline.com/attachments/article/55/IJEI.Vol.3.No.6.01.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2021).
26. Amerian, M.; Ahmadian, M.; Mehri, E. Sociocultural theory in practice: The effect of teacher, class, and peer scaffolding on the writing development of EFL learners. J. Appl. Linguist. Engl. Lit. 2014, 3, 2. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.1.
27. Hanjani, A.M. Collective peer scaffolding, self-revision, and writing progress of novice EFL learners. J. Engl. Stud. 2019, 19, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.331771.
28. Hsieh, Y.C. A case study of the dynamics of scaffolding among ESL learners and online resources in collaborative learning. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2017, 30, 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1273245.
29. Riazi, M.; Rezaii, M. Teacher- and Peer-Scaffolding Behaviors: Effects on EFL Students’ Writing Improvement. In Proceedings of the 12th National Conference for Community Languages and ESOL, Dunedin, New Zealand, 1–4 October 2011; pp. 55–63. Available online: http://www.tesolanz.org.nz/ (accessed on 13 February 2022).
30. Shehadeh, A. Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Second Lang. Writ. 2011, 20, 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010.
31. Dabbagh, N. Scaffolding: An important teacher competency in online learning. TechTrends 2003, 47, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02763424.
32. Shin, S.; Brush, T.A.; Glazewski, K.D. Examining the hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding framework in inquiry-based technology-enhanced learning environments: Impact on academic achievement and group performance. Technol. Res. Dev. 2020, 68, 2423–2447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09763-8.
33. Hou, H.T.; Keng, S.H. A Dual-Scaffolding Framework Integrating Peer-Scaffolding and Cognitive-Scaffolding for an Augmented Reality-Based Educational Board Game: An Analysis of Learners’ Collective Flow State and Collaborative Learning Behavioral Patterns. Educ. Comput. Res. 2021, 59, 547–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120969409.
34. Lai, M.; Law, N. Peer scaffolding of knowledge building through collaborative groups with differential learning experiences. Educ. Comput. Res. 2006, 35, 123–144. https://doi.org/10.2190/gw42-575w-q301-1765.
35. van de Pol, J.; Volman, M.; Beishuizen, J. Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. Teach. Educ. 2012, 28, 193–205.
36. Pifarre, M.; Cobos, R. Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. J. Comput.-Supported Collab. Learn. 2010, 5, 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9084-6.
37. Khodamoradi, A.; Irvani, H.; Jafarigohar, M.; Amerian, M. Teacher’s scaffolding vs. peers’ collaborative dialogue: Implementing innovation in the sociocultural context of Iranian universities. Middle-East J. Sci. Res. 2013, 14, 1212–1220. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.14.9.814.
38. Kuhoof, S.A.E. The impact of the interaction between the support source (teacher/peers) and the participating group Size (medium/large) in e-learning environment, BlackBoard, in developing the attitude towards it and the quality of creating e-tests for students at the faculty of Science and Arts in Sharurah. Educ. Al-Azhar Univ. 2020, 188, 291–356. Available online: https://journals.ekb.eg/article_146175.html (accessed on 26 May 2021).
39. Ozlem, O.Z.A.N. Scaffolding in connectivist mobile learning environment. Online J. Distance Educ. 2013, 14, 44–55. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tojde/issue/16896/176044.
40. El-Tabakh, H.A.; El-Moher, A.A. The effect of different support sources (teacher/peers) in the cloud learning environment on developing the skills of designing some web 2.0 applications for students of the Faculty of Specific Education. J. Sohag Univ. 2020, 75, 501–610. https://doi.org/10.12816/EDUSOHAG.2020.
41. Huang, H.; Lin, C.; Cai, D. Enhancing the learning effect of virtual reality 3D modeling: A new model of learner’s design collaboration and a comparison of its field system usability. Access Inf. Soc. 2021, 20, 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00750-7.
42. Hussein, M.; Nätterdal, C. The Benefits of Virtual Reality in Education-A Comparison Study. Bachelor’s Thesis, Chlamers Uni-versity of Technology, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden, 2015. Available online: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/39977/1/gupea_2077_39977_1.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2021).
43. Avcı, Ş.K.; Coklar, A.N.; İstanbullu, A. The effect of three dimensional virtual environments and augmented reality applications on the learning achievement: A meta-analysis study. Bilim 2019, 44, 149–182. https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2019.7969.
44. Çoklar, A.N.; Sahin, Y.L. Technostress levels of social network users based on ICTs in Turkey. J. Soc. Sci. 2011, 23, 171–182. Available online: https://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com/issues/EJSS_23_2.html (accessed on).
45. Ghanbarzadeh, R.; Ghapanchi, A.H. Investigating various application areas of three-dimensional virtual worlds for higher education. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 49, 370–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12538.
46. López, C.E.; Cunningham, J.; Ashour, O.; Tucker, C.S. Deep reinforcement learning for procedural content generation of 3d virtual environments. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2020, 20, 051005. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4046293.
47. Tilhou, R.; Taylor, V.; Crompton, H. 3D virtual reality in K-12 education: A thematic systematic review. Technol. Pedagog. Curric. 2020, 2020, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0618-5_10.
48. Alghamdi, M.; Regenbrecht, H.; Hoermann, S.; Swain, N. Mild stress stimuli built into a non-immersive virtual environment can elicit actual stress responses. Inf. Technol. 2017, 36, 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2017.1311374.
49. Tseng, W.T.; Liou, H.J.; Chu, H.C. Vocabulary learning in virtual environments: Learner autonomy and collaboration. System 2020, 88, 102190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102190.
50. Glaser, N.J.; Schmidt, M. Usage considerations of 3D collaborative virtual learning environments to promote development and transfer of knowledge and skills for individuals with autism. Knowl. Learn. 2020, 25, 315–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9369-9.
51. Cantey, D.S.; Sampson, M.; Vaughn, J.; Blodgett, N.P. Skills, community, and rapport: Prelicensure nursing students in the virtual learning environment. Learn. Nurs. 2021, 16, 384–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2021.05.010.
52. Carvalho Mano, R.M. The benefits of Virtual Reality in Education. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hochschule für Angewandte Wis-senschaften Hamburg, Hamburg Germany, 2019. Available online: https://reposit.haw-hamburg.de/bitstream/20.500.12738/8592/1/thesis.pdf (accessed on 28 February 2022).
53. Kinateder, M.; Ronchi, E.; Nilsson, D.; Kobes, M.; Müller, M.; Pauli, P.; Mühlberger, A. Virtual reality for fire evacuation research. In Proceedings of the 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, Warsaw, Poland, 7–10 September 2014; pp. 313–321. https://doi.org/10.15439/2014f94.
54. Boyles, B. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Education. Center for Teaching Excellence; United States Military Academy: West Point, NY, USA, Available online: https://www.westpoint.edu/sites/default/files/inline-images/centers_research/center_for_teching_excellence/PDFs/mtp_project_papers/Boyles_17.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2022).
55. Wu, H.K.; Lee, S.W.Y.; Chang, H.Y.; Liang, J.C. Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in educ Comput. Educ. 2013, 62, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024.
56. Schroeder, N.L. Pedagogical agents for learning. In Emerging Tools and Applications of Virtual Reality in Education; Choi, D.H., Dailey-Hebert, A., Estes, J.S., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 216–238. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9837-6.
57. Pantelidis, V.S. Reasons to use virtual reality in education and training courses and a model to determine when to use virtual reality. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 2010, 2, 59–70.