Virtual reality (VR) technologies are increasingly marketed to knowledge workers as productivity tools for focused, immersive work. Yet little empirical research examines the lived experience of sustained VR use for complex academic writing tasks. This study presents a 10-week diary study of a doctoral candidate using VR to compose her dissertation during summer 2025. Through weekly reflective entries, screen recordings, and artifact analysis, we examine the user experience dimensions of immersive academic writing. Our thematic analysis reveals six major findings: (1) technical infrastructure constraints dominated the writing experience; (2) embodied discomfort consistently limited sessions to 30–50 min; (3) affective dimensions shaped productivity; (4) learning curves remained steep throughout the study; (5) task type significantly influenced success, with structured administrative writing outperforming open-ended academic drafting; and (6) technical disruptions fragmented flow and made momentum recovery difficult. We argue that VR writing tools require task-appropriate design, realistic session expectations, and user agency to discontinue when needs are not met. These findings contribute user-centered evidence to technical communication scholarship on emerging composing technologies and offer practical guidance for graduate writing programs.
AggarwalR.MyttonO. T.DerbrewM.HananelD.HeydenburgM.IssenbergB.MacAulayC.ManciniM. E.MorimotoT.SoperN.ZivA.ReznickR. (2016). Training and simulation for patient safety. BMJ Quality & Safety, 19(2), i34–i43. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2009.038562
2.
AnthesC.García-HernándezR. J.WiedemannM.KranzlmüllerD. (2016). State of the art of virtual reality technology. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference (pp. 1–19). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2016.7500674
BailensonJ. (2018). Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how it works, and what it can do. W. W. Norton & Company.
5.
BallC. E.CharltonC. (2015). All writing is multimodal. In Adler-KassnerL.WardleE. (Eds.), Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 42–43). Utah State University Press.
6.
BaronD. (1999). From pencils to pixels: The stages of literacy technology. In HawisherG.SelfeC. (Eds.), Passions, pedagogies, and 21st century technologies (pp. 15–33). University Press of Colorado.
BayJ. L.BlackmonS. (2016). Inhabiting professional writing: Exploring rhetoric, play, and community in second life. In deWinterJ.MoellerR. M. (Eds.), Computer games and technical communication: Critical methods and applications at the intersection (pp. 211–231). Routledge.
9.
BazermanC. (2016). What do sociocultural studies of writing tell us about learning to write? In MacArthurC. A.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed, pp. 11–23). Guilford Press.
10.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
BolterJ. D. (1996). Ekphrasis, virtual reality, and the future of writing. In NunbergG. (Ed.), The future of the book (pp. 253–272). University of California Press.
CaravellaE. (2025). Human bodies, virtual spaces: Persuading presence in virtual reality games. Bloomsbury.
19.
CaravellaE.ShivenerR. (2026). Accessibility in virtual reality: A multimodal user experience framework for considering hardware, embodied, and spatial access. Computers and Composition, 79, 102971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102971
20.
CohenD. J.WhiteS.CohenS. B. (2011). A time use diary study of adult everyday writing behavior. Written Communication, 28(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310381260
21.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
22.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
23.
Doheny-FarinaS. (1992). Rhetoric, innovation, technology: Case studies of technical communication in technology transfers. MIT Press.
24.
DolmageJ. T. (2014). Disability rhetoric. Syracuse University Press.
25.
DuinA. H.MosesJ.McGrathM.ThamJ. (2016). Wearable computing, wearable composing: New dimensions in composition pedagogy. Computers and Composition Online. http://cconlinejournal.org/wearable/
26.
EngeströmY. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
27.
EnsB.FinneganR.IraniP. P. (2014). The personal cockpit: A spatial interface for effective task switching on head-worn displays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 3171–3180. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557058
28.
FlowerL.HayesJ. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
29.
FurneauxB.WadeM. (2011). An exploration of organizational level information systems discontinuance intentions. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/23042797
30.
GarrettJ. J. (2010). The elements of user experience: User-centered design for the web and beyond (2nd ed.). New Riders.
31.
GeertzC. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). Basic Books.
32.
GrubertJ.WitzaniL.OfekE.PahudM.KranzM.KristenssonP. O. (2018). Text entry in immersive head-mounted display-based virtual reality using standard keyboards. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). pp. 159–166. IEEE.
33.
HaasC. (1989). How the writing medium shapes the writing process: Effects of word processing on planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(2), 181–207. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte198915523
34.
HaasC. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
HassenzahlM. (2010). Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
37.
HaumanK.KastnerS.WitteA. (2015). Writing teachers for twenty-first-century writers: A gap in graduate education. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 15(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2799164
38.
HewittA. M.SpencerS.MirlissD.TwalR. (2009). Preparing graduate students for virtual world simulations: Exploring the potential of an emerging technology. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(6), Article 104305. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol5/iss6/3/
39.
HoffmanD. M.GirshickA. R.AkeleyK.BanksM. S. (2008). Vergence-accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. Journal of Vision, 8(3), 33. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.3.33
40.
HoomanfardM. H.ShamsiY. (2025). Generative AI in dissertation writing: L2 doctoral students’ self-reported use, AI-giarism, and perceived training needs. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 78, 101570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101570
41.
JeraldJ. (2015). The VR book: Human-centered design for virtual reality. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
42.
JohnsonM. (2007). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. University of Chicago Press.
43.
KimY. Y.KimH. J.KimE. N.KoH. D.KimH. T. (2018). Characteristic changes in the physiological components of cybersickness. Psychophysiology, 42(5), 616–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00349.x
44.
KimballM. A. (2017). The golden age of technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communicationm47(3), 330–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616641927
45.
KoenitzH.HaahrM.FerriG.SezenT. I. (Eds.). (2018). Interactive storytelling:11th International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04028-4
46.
KostelnickC.HassettM. (2003). Shaping information: The rhetoric of visual conventions. Southern Illinois University Press.
47.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.
48.
LambrechtK.LauerC.CarradiniS.KetkarP. (2025, October). Telling technical communication stories through virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM International Conference on Design of Communication. pp. 114–120. ACM.
49.
LeonK.PiggS. (2011). Graduate students professionalizing in digital time/space: A view from “down below”. Computers and Composition, 28(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2010.12.002
50.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
51.
LockridgeT.Van IttersumD. (2020). Writing workflows: Beyond word processing. University of Michigan Press.
52.
LovittsB. E. (2007). Making the implicit explicit: Creating performance expectations for the dissertation. Stylus Publishing.
53.
McNelyB. J.SpinuzziC.TestonC. (2015). Contemporary research methodologies in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2015.975958
54.
MelonçonL. (2013). Rhetorical accessability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies. Routledge.
55.
MelonçonL.St.AmantK. (2019). Empirical research in technical and professional communication: A 5-year examination of research methods and a call for research sustainability. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49(2), 128–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281618764611
56.
MeyerJ. H. F.LandR. (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. Routledge.
NormanD. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books.
62.
PerlS. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(4), 317–336. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201117867
PriorP.ShipkaJ. (2003). Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literate activity. In BazermanC.RussellD. R. (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 180–238). The WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity.
65.
RaineyK.KellyT. (1992). Doctoral research in technical communication, 1965-1990. Technical Communication, 39(4), 552–570. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43090165
RiddickS. (2024). Deliberative drifting over time: A critical reflection on designing social media methods for longevity. In HolmesA.HurleyE. V. (Eds.), Learning from the mess: Method/ological praxis in rhetoric and writing studies (pp. 39–53). The WAC Clearinghouse.
68.
RiemanJ. (1993). The diary study: A workplace-oriented research tool to guide laboratory efforts. In Proceedings of the INTERACT ‘93 and CHI ‘93 conference on human factors in computing systems. pp. 321–326. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/169059.169255
69.
RizzoA.ShillingR. (2017). Clinical virtual reality tools to advance the prevention, assessment, and treatment of PTSD. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 8(sup5), 1414560. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1414560
70.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
71.
Rojas-AlfaroR. (2024). Navigating the stacks virtually: Integrating virtual reality into writing resource instruction. Computers and Composition, 72, 102851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102851
72.
RoozenK. (2009). Fan fic-ing” English studies: A case study exploring the interplay of vernacular literacies and disciplinary engagement. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(2), 136–169. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte20099182
73.
RoseE. J.RacadioR.WongK.NguyenS.KimJ.ZahlerA. (2018). Community-based user experience: Evaluating the usability of health insurance information with immigrant patients. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 61(2), 214–231. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7869410
74.
RoseM. (1985). Writer's block: The cognitive dimension. Southern Illinois University Press.
75.
RoysterJ. J.KirschG. E. (2012). Feminist rhetorical practices: New horizons for rhetoric, composition, and literacy studies. Southern Illinois University Press.
76.
RuddleR. A.LesselsS. (2009). The benefits of using a walking interface to navigate virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 16(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1145/1502800.1502805
77.
RyanM.-L. (2001). Narrative as virtual reality: Immersion and interactivity in literature and electronic media. Johns Hopkins University Press.
78.
SelberS. A. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. Southern Illinois University Press.
79.
SelfeC. L.SelfeR. J. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones. College Composition and Communication, 45(4), 480–504. https://doi.org/10.2307/358761
80.
SelwynN. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x
81.
ShipkaJ. (2011). Toward a composition made whole. University of Pittsburgh Press.
82.
ShivenerR.CaravellaE. (2025). Writing in virtual reality: Understanding invention, collaboration, and friction in hybrid spaces. Written Communication, 42(3), 672–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883251328315
SlaterM.Sanchez-VivesM. V. (2016). Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3, 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074
85.
SpinuzziC. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. MIT Press.
SteedA.OrtegaF. R.WilliamsA. S.KruijffE.StuerzlingerW.BatmazA. U.RosenbergE. S. (2020). Evaluating immersive experiences during COVID-19 and beyond. Interactions, 27(4), 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406098
89.
SteinerL. B. (2015). Enacting professional literate practice: A snapshot of one graphic designer's process. In ThomasP.TakayoshiP. (Eds.), Literacy in practice: Writing in private, public, and working lives (pp. 189–201). Routledge.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
100.
VRelity. (2025, November 20). Meta Quest 3 Review - 2 Years Later! Still worth it in 2026? Youtube. https://youtu.be/62GK0L0iLN4
101.
WildP. J.McMahonC.DarlingtonM.LiuS.CulleyS. (2010). A diary study of information needs and document usage in the engineering domain. Design Studies, 31(1), 46–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.06.002
WuC.MoorhouseB. L.WanY.WuM. (2026). Exploring PhD students’ utilization of generative AI in academic writing for publication purposes: Insights for EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 79, 101612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101612
104.
WysockiA. F. (2004). Opening new media to writing: Openings and justifications. In WysockiA. F.Johnson-EilolaJ.SelfeC. L.SircG. (Eds.), Writing new media: Theory and applications for expanding the teaching of composition (pp. 1–41). Utah State University Press.
