Peer Feedback, English Public Speaking Self-Efficacy, and Performance in Facebook and Brightspace

Abstract

Social media applications (SMAs) stand at the forefront of emerging technologies in language education due to their transformative potential to enhance English speaking skills. Unlike traditional tools, SMAs leverage features like real-time communication, multimedia integration, and global connectivity, fostering authentic, meaningful interactions in socially engaging environments. Although learning management systems (LMSs) such as Brightspace have been predominantly used to conduct English language learning activities, including peer feedback, SMAs like Facebook offer unique affordances that may further promote student engagement and confidence. Developing public speaking skills is critical for effective communication in English language education; however, many students struggle with self-efficacy, speaking anxiety, and providing meaningful feedback to peers. Given the potential benefits of SMAs, this study explored their comparative impact on three dimensions of English language learning: English public speaking self-efficacy, peer feedback self-efficacy, and English speaking performance. This quasi-experimental study used a pretest–posttest design with undergraduate students (n = 15) at a large Midwestern university in the United States. Independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare outcomes between the Facebook and Brightspace groups. The results revealed that both SMAs and LMSs were equally effective platforms for peer feedback activities, with no significant differences found between groups across the three targeted areas of learning.

1. Introduction

In the evolving landscape of language education, social media applications (SMAs) have emerged as dynamic tools that bridge formal and informal learning environments. Their real-time interaction, multimedia capabilities, and user-driven content creation foster immersive language experiences that are essential for developing English speaking skills (Alam, 2019). Unlike traditional learning settings, SMAs enable learners to engage in spontaneous conversations, participate in virtual speaking communities, and receive instant peer feedback, all of which contribute to increased fluency and self-efficacy. As these platforms continue to advance, incorporating AI-driven speech recognition and interactive video features, their role in shaping communicative competence and confidence in English public speaking becomes increasingly indispensable. Interactions between the instructor and learners and among learners are significant elements of language learning (Ellis, 1999; Gass et al., 1998). Therefore, to increase student engagement and provide additional opportunities for interaction to improve students’ language skills, some instructors utilize LMSs such as Canvas and Brightspace, and other instructors have been using emerging technologies, including SMAs such as Facebook and WeChat (Alkamel, 2024; Barrot, 2023; Crum & Özçelik, 2024; VanDoorn & Eklund, 2013; Xu et al., 2017).

Peer feedback interactions are an essential form of social interaction for second language development. Peer feedback promotes students’ active learning and speaking performance (Yeh et al., 2019), self-efficacy, and confidence (Chan, 2000; Hattie & Gan, 2017; Rodríguez-González & Castañeda, 2018). Peer feedback can empower learners to support each other by providing information about their performance (Liu & Carless, 2006) and building learner self-efficacy. Lin and Yang (2011), Nicolini and Cole (2019), and Yeh et al. (2019) have reported that peer feedback promotes second language learning skills, including English public speaking (EPS).

English public speaking (EPS) is used as learning tool to develop language and critical thinking skills (Iberri-Shea, 2009). Lucas (2009) defines EPS as “an act of strategic communication, which requires technical English language proficiency, critical thinking, creative ideas, and logical word constructions” (p. 7). In EPS, learners need specialized knowledge about rhetorical patterns and devices, persuasive and emotional language, cohesive speech logic, and clear speechmakers when interacting with the audience (Zhang et al., 2020). Their beliefs can influence a learner’s performance in EPS and their EPS ability (Ratih et al., 2020).

Building confidence in students during the language learning process is essential for their success and long-term growth. When students are confident, they are more willing to engage actively in conversations, take risks, and embrace mistakes as part of their learning journey (Awidi & Klutsey, 2024; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Prananto et al., 2025). Confidence empowers learners to articulate their thoughts, even when their grammar or vocabulary is imperfect, and helps them develop resilience and a growth mindset. It also fosters self-efficacy, motivating students to persist through challenges and achieve their goals (Midwest Comprehensive Center, 2018). Additionally, confident learners contribute to a positive and supportive classroom environment, inspiring one another and creating a culture of shared success (Monteiro et al., 2021). By nurturing confidence, educators help students unlock their potential, transforming language learning from a daunting task into an exciting opportunity for personal growth and meaningful connection.

Digital platforms, such as SMAs and LMSs, have become predominant tools in language education (Istifci & Ucar, 2021; Perez et al., 2023; Turnbull et al., 2023); however, there is limited research explicitly exploring their effects on critical aspects of language learning, such as English public speaking self-efficacy, peer feedback self-efficacy, and speaking performance. Peer feedback is a vital part of language development. Previous research has examined peer feedback activities and the improvement of English language skills in SMAs (Akbari et al., 2017; Alfalah et al., 2017; Wiemeyer & Zeaiter, 2015) and LMSs separately (Bakar et al., 2013; Mwalongo, 2012; Tan, 2016). Additionally, no studies were found comparing peer feedback interactions in SMAs to those in LMSs concerning developing English public speaking self-efficacy, peer feedback self-efficacy, and speaking performance. This study evaluates whether informal, socially driven platforms like Facebook or structured, academic tools like Brightspace are better suited for fostering confidence, interactive learning, and performance improvement in public speaking tasks. Further, by focusing on mini video blogs as outcomes, this study addresses a unique and practical method of assessing learners’ speaking skills, making the findings especially relevant in a world where video content is a growing communication medium. Additionally, the results of this study are important because public speaking is a critical skill for academic, professional, and social success, yet it is often hindered by students’ lack of confidence (Awidi & Klutsey, 2024; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Monteiro et al., 2021; Prananto et al., 2025). The study can potentially improve language learning strategies by exploring the effects of digital peer feedback on students’ self-efficacy and performance. Therefore, this study examines the effects of peer feedback interactions in an SMA and an LMS on the learners’ English public speaking self-efficacy, peer feedback self-efficacy, and English speaking performance using mini video blogs as students’ outcomes.

Technology integration into language education has transformed traditional learning environments, offering platforms that promote interaction, collaboration, and skill development (Istifci & Ucar, 2021; Perez et al., 2023; Turnbull et al., 2023). SMAs and LMSs have emerged as powerful tools for fostering self-efficacy and enhancing peer feedback mechanisms, both critical components in developing English public speaking skills. Self-efficacy plays a key role in language learning by influencing motivation, resilience, and performance outcomes (Awidi & Klutsey, 2024; Hsieh & Kang, 2010; Hsieh & Schallert, 2008; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Mills et al., 2007; Monteiro et al., 2021; Prananto et al., 2025; Raoofi et al., 2012; Tilfarlioğlu & Ciftci, 2011). Similarly, peer feedback has been widely recognized for its ability to provide learners with constructive insights, enabling them to refine their speaking skills and build confidence (Chan, 2000; Hattie & Gan, 2017; Rodríguez-González & Castañeda, 2018; Yeh et al., 2019). While SMAs, such as Facebook, offer informal, socially driven environments for peer interaction, LMS platforms like Brightspace provide structured spaces for academic collaboration. This review examines the existing literature to explore the interaction between these factors, providing a foundation for understanding how digital platforms shape public speaking proficiency in language learners.

1.1. Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a person’s judgment of their ability to achieve an anticipated outcome (Bandura, 1977) or perform a task (Zimmerman, 2002). Self-efficacy is considered one of the most influential factors for second language learning (Raoofi et al., 2012) as it can determine a learner’s language learning persistence, interest, effort, motivation, achievement, self-regulated strategies, and language anxiety (Hsieh & Kang, 2010; Hsieh & Schallert, 2008; Mills et al., 2007; Raoofi et al., 2012; Tilfarlioğlu & Ciftci, 2011). Research in foreign language learning has shown that learners’ foreign language self-efficacy affects their performance in different language domains (Hsieh & Kang, 2010; Hsieh & Schallert, 2008; Mills et al., 2006, 2007; Rahimi & Abedini, 2009; Raoofi et al., 2012; Tilfarlioğlu & Ciftci, 2011; Wang et al., 2009). However, learners’ perceptions are usually inaccurate depictions of actual ability (Bandura, 2007; Hackett & Betz, 1989; Pajares & Miller, 1994). Self-efficacy beliefs are not static (Bartimote-Aufflick et al., 2016; Van Dinther et al., 2011; Zimmerman, 2000); instead, they can be affected by interactions between learners, interactions between the instructor and learners, and the context in which the learning occurs.

Self-efficacy, as a fundamental factor in the language learning process, empowers learners to approach tasks with confidence and resilience (Awidi & Klutsey, 2024; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Monteiro et al., 2021; Prananto et al., 2025). However, building self-efficacy does not happen in isolation; instead, it often stems from meaningful peer interactions, such as feedback exchanges (Monteiro et al., 2021). Peer feedback provides learners with constructive insights, offering both affirmation and areas for improvement, which directly contribute to their self-belief and capacity to perform. Therefore, the relationship between self-efficacy and peer feedback highlights how collaborative learning environments can foster both confidence and the development of public speaking skills in English (Ranjbar et al., 2025).

1.2. Peer Feedback

Peer feedback is learners’ communication based on performance and standards (Liu & Carless, 2006). This social interaction promotes students’ learning and speaking performance (Yeh et al., 2019); ownership of learning (Hattie & Gan, 2017); and learner autonomy, self-efficacy, and confidence (Chan, 2000; Hattie & Gan, 2017; Rodríguez-González & Castañeda, 2018). Peer feedback can provide an intermediate performance check against specified criteria, accompanied by feedback on strengths, weaknesses, and/or tips for improvement (Falchikov, 1996). Peer feedback can empower learners to support each other by providing information about their performance (Liu & Carless, 2006), which contributes to building learner self-efficacy. In their study, Ratih et al. (2020) found that self-efficacy greatly impacted learners’ speaking and peer feedback performance. Also, Au and Bardakçı (2020) reported that students with high self-efficacy significantly improved their oral performances after peer feedback sessions.

Peer feedback activities can be conducted in several settings. The most common way has been face to face; however, with the inclusion of technology into language classrooms, some instructors have used platforms such as LMSs and SMAs to provide feedback and to engage students in peer feedback interaction. In online settings, discussion forums in LMSs are usually used to conduct online interactive activities, and their use has been linked to boosting learners’ confidence and public speaking performance as they lower learners’ anxiety (Nicolini & Cole, 2019). Nevertheless, LMSs often lack features (i.e., tagging, embedding emojis, and instant messaging) of other online environments that help to encourage engagement and rapport and enhance flexibility, accessibility, and engagement, which are features provided by SMAs (Alfalah et al., 2017; Carr & Hayes, 2015; Di Gangi & Wasko, 2016; Pilli, 2014). Although SMAs were not purposefully created for education, these tools have the potential to be used in education, including language learning, as they provide opportunities for communication, collaboration, and interaction (Greenhow & Lewin, 2016). The adoption of SMAs into the language learning and teaching process allows students and instructors to (1) share resources, (2) encourage authentic learning, (3) collaborate, (4) build a community, (5) motivate, (6) evaluate and provide feedback, and (7) send notifications (Xue & Churchill, 2019).

SMAs, such as Facebook, can provide a context where students can interact socially while learning a second language to build their language self-efficacy. Facebook is one of the cost-effective and widely used SMAs that are part of students’ digital culture. Facebook groups allow people to build a sense of community, enhancing engagement, motivation, and communication. Akbari et al. (2017) found that giving peer feedback in an SMA can help students improve their language skills, and Xu et al. (2017) found that SMAs allow for flexible communication. SMAs such as Facebook can be used as an alternative context for language learning activities (Alfalah et al., 2017) to provide an interactive and collaborative environment for formal language learning (Wiemeyer & Zeaiter, 2015). Alternatively, private groups in SMAs can provide opportunities for students to share content, comment on posts, and support each other (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Maloney, 2007).

Although the benefits of peer feedback activities on students’ language learning and speaking in LMSs discussion forums have been researched (Mwalongo, 2012; Tan, 2016), less is known about using SMAs as learning environments and the efficacy of peer feedback in SMAs (Bakar et al., 2013). Further, although English public speaking and language self-efficacy have been researched (Zhang et al., 2020), additional research is necessary as few research studies correlate English public speaking in SMAs (Yeh et al., 2019) and peer feedback in SMAs and EPS (Nicolini & Cole, 2019). Therefore, research is needed to investigate students’ public speaking and peer feedback self-efficacy in SMAs and learners’ language performance skills in SMAs.

This study aims to investigate the effect of peer feedback interactions in an SMA and an LMSs on the learners’ English public speaking self-efficacy, peer feedback self-efficacy, and English speaking performance using mini video blogs as students’ outcomes. We examined learners’ perceptions of peer feedback and English public speaking self-efficacy before and after using Facebook and Brightspace for peer feedback activities and the impact on students’ English public speaking self-efficacy and performance. The following questions guided our research:

What effect do peer feedback interactions on Facebook and Brightspace have on learners’ English public speaking self-efficacy?

What effect do peer feedback interactions on Facebook and Brightspace have on learners’ peer feedback self-efficacy?

What effect do peer feedback interactions on Facebook and Brightspace have on learners’ speaking performance?

2. Materials and Methods

The study used a quantitative design to examine the impacts of using Facebook and Brightspace on learners’ English public speaking self-efficacy, peer feedback self-efficacy, and English speaking performance. This study employed a pretest–posttest design, in which participants in each group were assessed both before and after the intervention. Random assignment was not feasible, as students self-enrolled in one of two course sections. Consequently, the sections were designated as either the control group (using Brightspace) or the treatment group (using Facebook), and convenience sampling was applied.

2.1. Research Context

This quasi-experimental research was conducted in an English proficiency development course in a large Midwestern university in the United States targeted at international undergraduate students in any major. This course focused on university-level language, communication, and intercultural skills. The data was collected in the fall of 2021. The course lasted 16 weeks, and students had face-to-face classes twice a week for 75 min. Although the course was face to face, the instructor usually included other technologies, such as LMSs and video-based tools, to complement the in-person classes. One of the primary assessment activities required students to reflect on diverse topics using video blogs (vlogs) on a Facebook group or a discussion forum in Brightspace. Brightspace was the LMS since it was the university’s supported platform. On the other hand, the other group of students used Facebook since it was cost-effective and accessible and allowed students to post videos in closed groups, which were inaccessible to other users. After posting their videos, students were instructed to watch and respond in writing to one of their classmates’ videos. Video blog tasks included reading aloud and responding to assigned readings, watching videos, discussing ideas, and reflecting on course concepts.

2.2. Participants

The research involved 15 intermediate English language learners (2 females and 13 males). Their native languages included Chinese (7), Hindi (3), Spanish (3), Vietnamese (1), and Thai (1). The objective of the course curriculum was to develop English academic skills, including public speaking. The students were enrolled in one of the two sections of the course. Two platforms were used to compare students’ self-efficacy and speaking performance. One group (N = 8) used Facebook as the social media application, and the other section (N = 7) used the commercial LMS Brightspace. Both groups integrated one of the platforms into the curriculum to conduct peer feedback activities based on their classmates’ vlogs.

2.3. Instruments and Data

Each participant completed two surveys and ten vlogs. Out of these ten vlogs, the first one was the pretest, the last one was the posttest, and the eight vlogs in between worked as the intervention, in which students gave peer feedback. Pre- and post-surveys were given to students in English since they were in an English-only context. Students completed the pre-survey during the first week of classes. This survey included the consent form, which addressed questions about demographic information, an English public speaking self-efficacy scale (adapted from Zhang et al., 2019, and a peer feedback self-efficacy scale (receiving, reacting, and responding) (adapted from Doan, 2013; Mulder et al., 2014; Page & Hulse-Killacky, 1999). The post-survey was completed during the last week of classes and contained an English public speaking self-efficacy scale (adapted from Zhang et al., 2019) and a peer feedback self-efficacy scale (adapted from Doan, 2013; Mulder et al., 2014; Page & Hulse-Killacky, 1999) (see Appendix A). The adaptations to these scales were made to fit the corresponding used platform. Students also completed ten vlogs; the first was taken as the pretest, and the last was the posttest to determine if their public speaking performance improved after the intervention, which was the vlogs and the peer feedback activities. The pretest and posttest were controlled as the instructions were similar in relation to the speaking task, prompt (proverbs) speech type, and allotted time (from two to three minutes) (see Appendix B). Proverbs were used as the speaking prompt for the pretest and posttest; however, they were changed to avoid content repetition. The use of proverbs in the context of English language learning allowed the researchers to provide engaging, culturally enriching, and reflective prompts. When students explain or reflect on proverbs, they are practicing cohesive, structured speech: introduction of the proverb, explanation, interpretation, and application, which mirrors the structure of effective speeches.

To ensure inter-rater reliability in the pretest and posttest assessment, two of the authors, both experienced English language instructors, evaluated the students’ performance using an adapted version of the validated rubric provided by Schreiber et al. (2012) (see Appendix C). Each instructor assessed students individually, recorded notes, and assigned scores for each rubric criterion. Afterward, the instructors met to compare and discuss their evaluations for each student. Notably, 90% of the grades initially assigned by the two raters matched across all criteria, indicating a high level of agreement. For the remaining 10%, discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. This process helped ensure the reliability and consistency of the assessment scores.

2.4. Procedures

2.4.1. Introductory Stage

The instructor set discussion boards in Brightspace. For Facebook, one researcher created a closed group on Facebook and added the instructor as one of the administrators. Before the course began, the instructor met with the researchers to discuss how the intervention would be conducted, and guidelines were created for students using Facebook or Brightspace. During the first week of classes, the instructor introduced vlogs as part of their assignments and shared the guidelines and submission dates with the students. These guidelines were discussed in class with the students. During this first week, the instructor shared the link to the survey and sent some reminders to complete the survey. Students also received links with tutorials on how to use and post in closed groups on Facebook, how to post in discussion forums in Brightspace, and general guidelines for giving and receiving feedback. Sub-groups of 4 students were created within each platform to conduct peer feedback activities. The instructor randomly assigned the students to peer feedback groups and shared the link to the corresponding groups for students to join. The first vlog, which was the pretest, was assigned as homework for the following week.

2.4.2. Intervention Stage

The intervention started with vlogs. The students’ first vlog, which was completed during the second week of classes, was the pretest. Students recorded their first vlog and uploaded it directly to a Box folder. For this vlog, students did not give or receive peer feedback. For the remaining vlogs, students used the corresponding platform (Facebook or Brightspace) to upload their videos. After students uploaded their vlog to the corresponding platform, they were asked to watch videos from their classmates in their peer feedback sub-groups to give feedback on their performance. Once they got peer feedback comments, students were asked to respond to those comments. Although students had the opportunity to reply in audio, video, and written form, all of the students preferred to use written peer feedback. In each vlog, participants gave feedback to three of their peers. Students submitted eight vlogs in which they gave and received feedback from their peers.

2.4.3. Final Stage

Once the students completed the intervention, they submitted the last vlog, which was uploaded to a Box folder. Peer feedback activities were not conducted for the last vlog since it was the posttest. After submitting the posttest, students completed the post-survey, which was distributed online through Qualtrics. Once the semester finished, participants were eliminated from the Facebook group.

2.5. Data Analysis

Data was analyzed quantitatively using SPSS version 28 to address the research questions, considering descriptive and inferential statistics. The independent variable in this study was the platform on which peer feedback activities were conducted (i.e., Facebook vs. Brightspace). The dependent variables included peer feedback self-efficacy, English public speaking self-efficacy, and English performance. We calculated mean scores (M) and standard deviations (SD) to determine students’ English public speaking self-efficacy and peer feedback self-efficacy scores in the pre-survey and post-survey. Mean scores and standard deviations of students’ speaking performance in the pretest and posttest were also calculated. For the data analysis, we conducted independent sample t-tests. This type of test allowed us to compare the means of two groups (i.e., Facebook and Brightspace) to determine if the means were significantly different (Privitera, 2018). We first calculated the difference in mean scores for each student, and then we calculated the independent samples t-test in the differences. Therefore, with this calculation, we avoided any possible outliers caused by any specific students (over- or under-performers). Therefore, independent sample t-tests were used to measure the differences in students’ perceived peer feedback self-efficacy, perceived English public speaking self-efficacy, and performance scores between the Facebook and Brightspace groups.

3. Results

This study aimed to examine the impact of peer feedback activities on Facebook and Brightspace on learners’ English public speaking self-efficacy and peer feedback self-efficacy and English speaking performance. We also sought to compare the effects that the platforms had on the students’ self-efficacy and English performance.

3.1. The Effect of Peer Feedback Interactions on Facebook and Brightspace on the Learners’ English Public Speaking Self-Efficacy

Table 1 shows the mean scores and standard deviations of students’ English public speaking self-efficacy in the pre-survey and post-survey for the Facebook and Brightspace groups and the mean difference in their scores. The data indicated that after the intervention, students in both the Facebook (M = 7.75, SD = 1.48) and Brightspace (M = 7.63, SD = 0.98) groups improved their English public speaking self-efficacy. This data also showed that the mean scores of the learners’ English public speaking self-efficacy were higher, although not statistically significantly (p = 0.878). Therefore, we could not conclude that the interactions in the two platforms made any significant difference in the learners’ English public speaking self-efficacy. However, 80% of the students improved their self-efficacy in public speaking English, regardless of the platform.

3.2. The Effect of Peer Feedback Interactions on Facebook and Brightspace on the Learners’ Peer Feedback Self-Efficacy

The mean scores, standard deviations, and mean differences of peer feedback self-efficacy in the pre-survey and post-survey for the Facebook and Brightspace groups are presented in Table 2. The mean scores in the posttest showed that students in both the Facebook (M = 7.75, SD = 1.48) and Brightspace (M = 7.63, SD = 0.98) groups improved their peer feedback self-efficacy after the vlogs and peer feedback interactions in the two platforms. This data also showed that there was no significant effect of the platform on the students’ peer feedback self-efficacy (p = 0.991). Nevertheless, 75% of the students improved their peer feedback self-efficacy no matter the platform on which the peer feedback activities were conducted.

3.3. The Effect of Peer Feedback Interactions on Facebook and Brightspace on the Learners’ Speaking Performance

Table 3 presents the mean scores, standard deviations, and mean differences of students’ speaking performance grades during the pretest and posttest for both the Facebook and Brightspace groups. These grades were obtained after inter-rater reliability was conducted. The data indicated that students in both the Facebook (M = 7.33, SD = 1.26) and Brightspace (M = 8.76, SD = 1.28) groups improved their English speaking performance. The mean differences were slightly negative, which showed that their performance decreased, although not statistically significantly (p = 0.764). These results showed that the interactions in the platform did not significantly affect students’ speaking performance.

4. Discussion

The present study investigated the effect of peer feedback interactions in an SMA and an LMS on the students’ English public speaking self-efficacy, peer feedback self-efficacy, and English speaking performance. The results revealed that neither platform produced statistically significant changes across these constructs. However, when interpreted through the lens of self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997) and sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), these findings still offered meaningful insights into the affordances and limitations of technology-mediated peer interaction in language education. The first research question aimed to analyze the effects peer feedback interaction on Facebook and Brightspace had on the learners’ EPS self-efficacy. The data showed a moderate increase in students’ EPS self-efficacy in both groups, but this increase was not statistically significant. While this might seem underwhelming at first glance, the results suggested that repeated engagement in peer-supported public speaking activities may have contributed to a gradual internalization of confidence. According to Bandura (1997), mastery experiences are the most powerful source of self-efficacy. In this study, the students’ sustained engagement with public speaking via vlogs and iterative peer evaluation may have provided low-stakes, repeated mastery experiences. Similarly, the data obtained to answer the second research question showed a slight increase in students’ peer feedback (PF) self-efficacy; however, it did not significantly increase. Peer feedback can be viewed as a form of mediated action (Wertsch, 1991), where learners negotiate meaning and reflect on performance—all higher-order skills facilitated by social interaction. Although the platform type did not significantly influence the outcomes, the overall increase aligns with the claims of sociocultural theorists who argue that collaborative activities in digital contexts can mediate cognitive and affective development (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). This small study showed that interactions on Facebook or in Brightspace did not significantly affect the learners’ EPS or PF self-efficacy. Thus, the type of platform in which these peer feedback interactions take place does not have a significant effect on the learners’ EPS or PF self-efficacy. Several interesting findings resulted from this study. First, the students in both groups were more confident in their English speaking and peer feedback skills as their self-efficacy scores increased from the pre-survey to the post-survey. These results support the findings of Tower et al. (2014), who found that social media can increase students’ academic self-efficacy in the field of nursing. Similarly, Pleines (2020) found that participation in online learning environments contributed to developing students’ confidence in their ability to perform second language learning tasks as their anxiety levels decreased. These findings may also be explained through the sociocultural concept of mediated action (Wertsch, 1991), which views learning as socially constructed and facilitated by tools—in this case, digital platforms. The platforms served not only as venues for task completion but also as mediational means for internalizing speaking norms, evaluating peer work, and aligning self-performance to perceived standards. The act of watching peer videos, as Pleines (2020) argues, allows learners to notice discrepancies between their current output and an aspirational model, encouraging goal setting and skill refinement and development.

Second, this study showed that both platforms, Facebook and Brightspace, had the potential for developing English public speaking and peer feedback self-efficacy. These results may be explained by the fact that students in both groups repeatedly uploaded vlogs and gave peer feedback on both platforms; therefore, it is expected that after doing this several times during the semester, students would be more confident in their skills. Also, having videos from other peers could have contributed to the increase in their self-efficacy skills. As reported by Pleines (2020), watching videos from other classmates may help learners notice the gap between their current performance and a target performance, leading to language learning. She further reported that watching videos from peers posted on online learning platforms can also help learners position themselves within a group, which increases their self-efficacy. These peer models serve as both instructional references and affective supports. In line with Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), the digital environment creates opportunities for learners to engage in scaffolded performance—producing language slightly above their current level with the support of peer interaction. Thus, the benefit lies not in the platform per se but in how it facilitates meaningful, repeated, socially supported practice.

Perhaps the most interesting finding of this study is related to the third research question. The data indicated that students’ performance minimally decreased regardless of the platform they used for peer feedback activities. This showed that the platform did not affect the students’ performance scores. A possible explanation might be that students usually focused more on courses related to their major at the end of the semester than on English proficiency courses. Another possible explanation is that the students in the Brightspace group were more advanced, and in the pretest, their grades were close to the highest score. Hence, this group of students had little room for improvement. This small posttest decline may also reflect what could be termed a temporal mismatch between cognitive and affective gains and linguistic performance outcomes. Students may begin to feel more confident and aware of what constitutes effective speaking, but actual language performance improvement often lags behind attitudinal and strategic gains. Moreover, a potential ceiling effect in the Brightspace group may have constrained measurable improvement. It is also possible that summative assessments did not capture the students’ growth in fluency, pragmatics, or strategic competence that may have occurred. Although there was not a statistically significant decrease in students’ posttest scores, the results for both platforms were similar. This confirms previous research findings supporting that language learning speaking activities may be enhanced with SMAs (Ebadijalal & Yousofi, 2021; Yeh et al., 2019).

Taken together, these findings suggest that while the choice of digital platforms may not in itself determine learning outcomes, the design of the learning experience—including repetition, modeling, social interaction, and feedback—remains crucial. A longer intervention period, tasks with greater complexity, and formative assessments that more sensitively capture communicative development may be needed to reveal the full potential of platform-mediated peer learning.

5. Conclusions

This study aimed to investigate the effect that peer feedback activities on Facebook and Brightspace had on the learners’ English public speaking, peer feedback self-efficacy, and English public speaking performance. Research studies that compare SMAs and LMS, especially Facebook and Brightspace, for developing students’ English public speaking self-efficacy and peer feedback self-efficacy are scarce. Nevertheless, the findings show that despite the platform, peer feedback activities did not contribute to an improvement in the students’ English public speaking performance. Moreover, 80% of the students improved their English public speaking self-efficacy regardless of the platform, and 75% of the students improved their peer feedback self-efficacy no matter the platform the peer feedback activities were conducted in.

These findings have both theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical point of view, this study provides evidence that peer feedback activities have a similar effect on students’ speaking performance regardless of the platform on which these activities are carried out. SMAs such as Facebook have educational affordances that allow students to improve their speaking performance and speaking self-efficacy, which is equivalent to an LMS. From a practical point of view, this study provides evidence for instructors to include video blogs and peer feedback activities in the platforms available to help learners improve their English public speaking self-efficacy and performance in online settings. Some institutions worldwide do not have access to LMSs such as Brightspace due to the excessive cost involved. However, instructors can implement activities in social media groups such as Facebook groups to enhance the development of speaking skills using low-cost, accessible, and flexible technologies such as SMAs, including Facebook. Moreover, the social features of platforms like Facebook can help foster a sense of classroom community and peer modeling, encouraging learners to compare, evaluate, and scaffold one another’s performance. This peer interaction supports both the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and noticing, both of which are crucial in second language development. Thus, regardless of the technological infrastructure available, instructors can leverage these widely used tools to create inclusive, interactive, and psychologically supportive learning experiences

Limitations

This study presented some limitations. First, each of the samples was not composed of independent students. The participants from the two groups interacted among themselves during class and out of class; therefore, peer feedback interaction could have been influenced by relationships they might have built during class. Students’ background knowledge and previous use of Facebook could have also impacted how students interacted on the platforms. Most of the students were from China, and although they might have heard about Facebook, they were not familiar with this social media as it is banned in China. Finally, the number of participants and the imbalance in gender are also limitations acknowledged for this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.U.-R. and V.L.L.; Formal analysis, L.U.-R. and W.Y.; Investigation, L.U.-R.; Resources, L.U.-R.; Data curation, L.U.-R.; Writing—original draft, L.U.-R.; Writing—review & editing, V.L.L. and W.Y.; Supervision, V.L.L.; Project administration, V.L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Purdue University (protocol code IRB-2020-987 approved on 14 December 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the participants to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data gathered for this research can be found in the following link: https://app.box.com/s/7tceebfbnigr6amopn6c57bigaxhwagf (accessed on 23 January 2024).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

SMAs	Social media applications
LMSs	Learning management systems

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Tables

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, and independent samples t-test results for English public speaking self-efficacy.

	Pre-Survey		Post-Survey		Difference		95% CI	p
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Facebook (n = 8)	6.56	1.40	7.75	1.48	1.19	1.92	[−2.27, 1.96]	0.878
Brightspace (n = 7)	6.29	2.50	7.63	0.98	1.34	1.86

Table 2

Means, standard deviations, and independent samples t-test results for peer feedback self-efficacy.

	Pre-Survey		Post-Survey		Difference		95% CI	p
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Facebook (n = 8)	7.77	0.85	8.62	1.34	0.85	1.52	[1.83, 1.82]	0.991
Brightspace (n = 7)	7.87	1.43	8.73	1.37	0.86	1.75

Table 3

Means, standard deviations, and independent samples t-test results for speaking performance.

	Pre-Survey		Post-Survey		Difference		95% CI	p
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Facebook (n = 8)	7.77	0.85	8.62	1.34	0.85	1.52	[1.83, 1.82]	0.991
Brightspace (n = 7)	7.87	1.43	8.73	1.37	0.86	1.75

Appendix A

Appendix A.1. English Public Speaking Self-Efficacy Scale

(Five-point Likert scale)

Strongly agree, agree, neither nor, somewhat agree, strongly disagree

When giving an English speech in public, I can speak accurately.

When giving an English speech in public, I can speak fluently.

When giving an English speech in public, I can employ appropriate rhetorical devices (e.g., sharing quotations, sharing interesting personal life stories, repeating my ideas) in my speech.

When giving an English speech in public on an unfamiliar/difficult topic, I can always speak effectively.

When giving an English speech in public, I can speak with emotion.

I can give an English speech in public when I am very nervous.

When giving an English speech in public, I can catch and keep the audience’s attention.

When giving an English speech in public, I can speak with confidence.

When giving an English speech in public, I can organize my speech so that the conclusion flows logically from what was previously said.

When giving an English speech in public, I can use appropriate language (e.g., vocabulary, grammatical structures) to address different topics.

When giving an English speech in public, I can make my central idea clear to the audience.

When giving an English speech in public, I can use inductive techniques (proceeding from details to generalization/argument) to structure a speech.

When giving an English speech in public, I can use deductive techniques (proceeding from generalization/argument to details) to structure a speech.

When giving an English speech in public, I can use the conclusion to restate my main points.

Appendix A.2. Sources of Self-Efficacy in English Public Speaking

(Five-point Likert scale)

Strongly agree, agree, neither nor, somewhat agree, strongly disagree

In the past, when I gave English speeches in public, I introduced a topic clearly.

In the past, when I gave English speeches in public, I made my points clear to the audience.

In the past, when I gave English speeches in public, I organized my speech so that the conclusion flowed logically from what was previously said.

In the past, when I gave English speeches in public, I used relevant examples to illustrate the main points.

In the past, when I gave English speeches in public, I addressed a familiar topic effectively.

In the past, when I gave English speeches in public, I used concise language.

When my peers at my level of English speaking ability give English speeches in public, I have seen them support the central idea of the speech with rich evidence/examples.

When my peers at my level of English speaking ability give English speeches in public, I have seen them address a familiar topic effectively.

When my peers at my level of English speaking ability give English speeches in public, I have seen them organize their speech so that the conclusion flows logically from what was previously said.

My teachers/instructors/peers/audience/parents have praised my ability to employ rhetorical devices (e.g., sharing quotations, sharing interesting personal life stories, repeating my ideas) in my speech.

My teachers/instructors/peers/audience/parents have praised my ability to use different techniques to conclude a speech (e.g., using summary, restatement, or rhetorical questions, etc.).

My teachers/instructors/peers/audience/parents have praised my ability to use appropriate language (e.g., vocabulary, grammatical structures) to address different topics.

When giving an English speech in public, I felt nervous.

When giving an English speech in public, I got stressed.

When giving an English speech in public, I got anxious.

Appendix A.3. Peer Feedback Self-Efficacy: Evaluating

(Five-point Likert scale)

Strongly agree, agree, neither nor, somewhat agree, strongly disagree

In peer feedback activities, I can find the strengths of my peers’ work when I review it.

In peer feedback activities, I can find the weaknesses of my peers’ work when I review it.

In peer feedback activities, I can give helpful opinions or suggestions when I review peers’ work.

In peer feedback activities, I can tell whether my peer has done his/her best or not when I review his/her work.

In peer feedback activities, I can identify the strengths of peers’ work and provide explanations.

In peer feedback activities, I can identify the weaknesses of peers’ work and provide suggestions.

Appendix A.4. Peer Feedback Self-Efficacy: Receiving

(Five-point Likert scale)

Strongly agree, agree, neither nor, somewhat agree, strongly disagree

In peer feedback activities, I can recognize my weakness when I get comments from peers.

In peer feedback activities, I can decide whether or not to revise my work after I get peers’ feedback.

In peer feedback activities, I can ignore unreasonable feedback from peers.

In peer feedback activities, I can examine the problem in my own work when I get comments from peers.

Appendix A.5. Peer Feedback Self-Efficacy: Reacting

(Five-point Likert scale)

Strongly agree, agree, neither nor, somewhat agree, strongly disagree

When receiving peers’ comments in peer feedback activities, I can identify which of their opinions are of more importance.

When receiving peers’ comments in peer feedback activities, I can identify which of their suggestions are more helpful to me.

After receiving peers’ comments in peer feedback activities, I can make plans to improve my work by steps.

After reading peers’ comments in peer feedback activities, I can improve my work with a good strategy.

After reading peers’ comments in peer feedback activities, I can make better revision to my work.

Appendix B

Student Guidelines for Vlogs and Feedback

The following guidelines have the purpose of guiding you in giving and receiving feedback in oral speaking tasks.

Assigned Vlog

Vlogs are videos that someone regularly posts on the internet in which they record their thoughts or experiences or talk about a subject (Collins Dictionary).

Record a vlog talking about the topic assigned. You can use your phone, laptop, or another device of your choice to record yourself. Make sure your videos include clear sound. Each vlog must be for at least 2 min and no longer than 3 min. Work on each vlog assignment and upload it by the due date to your Facebook group. The table summarizes the topics and due dates for the vlog, but pay close attention to instructions in each vlog.

Vlog #	Topic	Due Date	Where to Post It?
1 (pretest)	Proverbs (Part 1)	Week 2: April 6	Purdue Boxhttps://purdue.app.box.com/f/38d9b54efa6b42c1918fdf11605eeb32
2	At-home learning spaces	Week 3: April 20	Facebook
3	Student productivity	Week 6: May 11	Facebook
4	SMART goals	Week 7: May 18	Facebook
5	Routines	Week 9: June 1	Facebook
6	Personality	Week 10: June 8	Facebook
7	Language Learning	Week 11: June 15	Facebook
8	Technology	Week 12: June 22	Facebook
9	Academic Integrity	Week 14: July 6	Facebook
10 (posttest)	Proverbs (Part 2)	Week 15: July 13	Purdue Boxhttps://purdue.app.box.com/f/1dcca672460b4db1b536490850349d0f

Vlog 1

Due date: Week 2: April 6

Where to post it: Purdue Box https://purdue.app.box.com/f/38d9b54efa6b42c1918fdf11605eeb32

Give feedback by: April 8

Topic: Proverbs (Part 1)

Choose from one of the following popular proverbs. What do you think the proverb means? Why did you choose it? Is there something similar in your native language?

Hard work is the key to success.

Knowledge is power.

Honesty is the best policy.

You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Strike while the iron is hot.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Don’t make a mountain out of a molehill.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Vlog 2

Due date: Week 3: April 20

Give feedback by: April 22

Topic: At-Home Learning Spaces

Learning spaces are physical settings at home that you set for educational purposes. What is your ideal learning space? What characteristics does it have (space distribution, ventilation, light, furniture, etc.)?

Vlog 3

Due date: Week 6: May 11

Give feedback by: May 13

Topic: Student Productivity

As a student, productivity is essential to achieve success. What strategies do you have to increase your productivity? How do you manage your time? What is your high-energy “prime time”? What kind of changes can you make in your daily routine to adapt to your results? What kind of benefits will you receive by doing this in terms of achieving your personal goals set for this semester?

Vlog 4

Due date: Week 7: May 18

Give feedback by: May 20

Topic: SMART goals

Setting goals is vital for your success. SMART goals stand for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely goals. What are your academic goals for the next 3 years? Are these goals SMART? If not, what can you do to make them SMART? What actions can you take to achieve those goals?

Vlog 5

Due date: Week 9: June 1

Give feedback by: June 3

Topic: Routines

Routines are important in our lives as they help us cope with change and create healthy habits.

Do you have certain routines that you follow? What are those routines? What do you like about your routine? How would you feel if something in your daily routine was changed? How can you improve our routine in order to create healthier habits?

Vlog 6

Due date: Week 10: June 8

Give feedback by: June 10

Topic: Personality

Some people think that a person’s personality is shaped by environmental influences while others think that it is something we are born with. What is your best/worst personality trait? How do they influence your academic life? What personality traits could help people succeed in life?

Vlog 7

Due date: Week 11: June 15

Give feedback by: June 17

Topic: Language Learning

Learning a second, third, or more languages is considered beneficial. Why do you think learning languages has become so popular? What advantages do bilinguals or multilinguals have over monolinguals? Is there a language which you do not speak but which you would like to learn? Why does this language interest you? When did you start learning your first foreign language? How has your experience been?

Vlog 8

Due date: Week 12: June 22

Give feedback by: June 24

Topic: Technology

Do you enjoy learning how to use new technology? What piece of technology is most important to you? In general, has technology improved the quality of life in the 21st century? Why (not)? How has technology influenced education? What pieces of technology would you like to have in the language learning classroom? What benefits would it bring to you/teachers/the system?

Vlog 9

Due date: Week 14: July 6

Give feedback by: July 8

Topic: Academic integrity

Academic integrity (values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility in learning) is essential during our academic lives. Why do you think they are important? What behaviors would you consider academic dishonesty? What are the consequences? What are the expectations of you as a college student? What academic skills are you expected to possess?

Vlog 10

Due date: Week 15: July 13

Give feedback by: July 15

Where to post it: Purdue Box https://purdue.app.box.com/f/1dcca672460b4db1b536490850349d0f

Topic: Proverbs (Part 2)

Choose from one of the following popular proverbs. What do you think the proverb means? Why did you choose it? Is there something similar in your native language?

A barking dog never bites.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

What you lose on the swings you gain on the roundabouts.

Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched.

Actions speak louder than words.

Haste makes waste.

The shoemaker’s son always goes barefoot.

It’s the early bird that catches the worm.

Posting Your Vlog Presentations to Facebook

Open your class Facebook group.

Upload your recorded presentation to the Facebook group.

Consider adding any comments about things that you are working on or would like feedback on.

Provide Feedback for Your Peers

Read Giving and Receiving Feedback: A Guide for Students

Read the Peer-feedback Rubric

As your classmates post their videos, watch them and take notes on their performance in general.

Comment on your group members’ presentations to give them feedback about their performance in that presentation. Provide comments about things they do well and things they can improve on related to delivery, language use (structure, vocabulary, syntax), pronunciation, and topic development. Be specific. Provide ideas for improvement when needed.

Use the peer feedback rubric to provide suggestions to your classmates.

Give feedback by Friday of that week.

Receiving Feedback from Your Peers

As you receive feedback, respond to your classmates’ feedback by asking questions on further elaboration, clarification, examples for improvement, resources, etc.

Consider the feedback for improvement.

Appendix C

Public Speaking Competence Rubric

Performance Standard	Assessment Criteria
The student …	Advanced4	Proficient3	Basic2	Minimal1	Deficient0
Develops the topic appropriately	The topic was fully developed and included an introduction, supporting details, and conclusion. The topic was engaging and presented new information. The content was perfectly clear.	The topic was developed and included an introduction, supporting details, and conclusion. The topic presented relevant ideas and information. The content was clear.	The topic was somewhat developed and lacked an introduction, supporting details, or conclusion. Topic lacked originality and provided scant new information. The content was not entirely clear.	The topic was not completely developed and lacked a clear introduction, supporting details, and/or conclusion. Information was not presented clearly.	The topic was not developed. The speech did not include an introduction, supporting details, and/or conclusion. Information was presented randomly. The content was not clear.
Presents ideas in a coherent and cohesive manner	The speech was clear, understandable, and logically organized. Main points were clear, mutually exclusive, and directly related to the thesis. Speaker used transitions and signposts effectively.	The speech was mostly clear and organized. Ideas flowed logically, and main points were apparent. Transitions were present between main points. Speaker sometimes used signposts. The speech was understandable.	The speech was understandable and attempted to have a logical organization, but main points were not mutually exclusive. Transitions were present but were not effective.	Speech was difficult to understand. The topic did not flow well. Speech was not logically organized. Transitions were present but not well formed.	Speech was not understandable. Speaker did not use transitions. Speech sounded as if information was randomly presented.
Demonstrates careful choice of words	Word choice was exceptionally clear, imaginative, and vivid; completely free from bias and inappropriate usage. The student used appropriate expressions and a wide range of vocabulary. There were not any errors in word choice.	Word choice was appropriate to the goals of the presentation; no evidence of bias. The student used varied vocabulary and expressions. There were a few errors in word choice.	Word choice was adequate; language at times misused (e.g., jargon, slang, awkward vocabulary). Basic and simple vocabulary was used.	Word choice needs to be improved; occasionally biased. Message was not always clear due to word choice.	Vocabulary was inadequately used. Speaker extensively used jargon, slang, sexist/racist terms. Message was hindered due to inadequate word choice.
Uses grammatical structures appropriately	Speaker used many different structures depending on contexts. Speech had no grammatical errors.	Speaker used a variety of sentence structures with few errors.	Speaker used a variety of structures with frequent errors or used basic structures with some errors.	Speaker used basic structures only. Grammar and syntax need to be improved. Speaker used simple structures with errors, and errors hindered the message.	Speaker had many errors in grammar and syntax in basic structures.
Effectively uses vocal expression and paralanguage to engage the audience in the speech	Speaker had excellent pronunciation and use of vocal variation, intensity, and pacing. Vocal expression (the pitch, pace, pause, power, and pronunciation) was natural and enthusiastic. Speech was clear and comprehensible.	Speaker had good pronunciation, vocal variation, and pace. Vocal expression suited to assignment. Speaker had few if any pronunciation mistakes. Speech was comprehensible.	Speaker demonstrated some vocal variation, enunciated clearly, and spoke audibly. Speech was not fully comprehensible due to vocal expression mistakes.	Speaker sometimes used a voice too soft or articulation too indistinct for listeners to comfortably hear. Speech was sometimes comprehensible. There were many vocal expression mistakes.	Speaker spoke inaudibly and enunciated poorly. Speaker used a monotone and had poor pacing. The use of fillers was distracting.
Speaks fluently and smoothly	Speaker spoke smoothly with little hesitation and did not interrupt the flow of conversation. Speaker was confident and avoided fillers.	Speaker spoke with some hesitation, but it did not usually interrupt the flow of conversation; few if any fillers.	Speaker spoke with some hesitation, which sometimes interfered with communication. Speaker used some fillers (e.g., um, uh, like).	Speaker spoke with much hesitation, which often interfered with communication. Speaker often used fillers. The speech was completely choppy.	Speaker spoke very little, with much hesitation, or didn’t speak at all.
Demonstrates nonverbal behavior that supports the verbal message	Speaker had great posture, gestures, facial expression, and eye contact. Speaker displayed high levels of poise and confidence.	Postures, gestures, and facial expressions were suitable for speech. Speaker appeared confident.	Speaker had some reliance on notes but had adequate eye contact. Speaker generally avoided distracting mannerisms.	Speaker relied heavily on notes. Nonverbal expression was stiff and unnatural.	Speaker usually looked down and avoided eye contact. Nervous gestures and nonverbal behaviors distracted from or contradicted the message.

References

Ajjan, H.; Hartshorne, R. Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education; 2008; 11, 2 pp. 71-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002]

Akbari, E.; Simons, R. J.; Pilot, A.; Naderi, A. Peer feedback in learning a foreign language in Facebook. Global Journal of Human-Social Science: Linguistics & Education; 2017; 17, 2 pp. 31-44.

Alam, M. Facebook as a formal instructional environment in facilitating L2 writing: Impacts and challenges. International Journal of Language Education; 2019; 3, 2 pp. 41-48.

Alfalah, T.; Alfalah, S.; Falah, J.; Qutaishat, W.; Ishretih, W.; Al-Zu’bi, M. Learning Management System versus Social Networking Sites. International Business Research; 2017; 10, 6 pp. 123-136.

Alkamel, M. A. A. Social media in teaching English for EFL students: A review of challenges and suggestions. International Journal of English Teaching and Learning; 2024; 2, 1 pp. 8-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijetl.20240201.12]

Au, H. Y. C.; Bardakçı, M. An analysis of the effect of peer and teacher feedback on EFL learners’ oral performances and speaking self-efficacy levels. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET); 2020; 7, 4 pp. 1453-1468.

Awidi, I. T.; Klutsey, J. Q. Using online critical reflection to enhance students’ confidence, motivation, and engagement in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09751-4]

Bakar, N.; Latiff, H.; Hamat, A. Enhancing ESL learners’ speaking skills through asynchronous online discussion forum. Asian Social Science; 2013; 9, 9 pp. 224-233.

Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review; 1977; 84, 2 pp. 191-215.

Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control; W.H. Freeman and Company: 1997.

Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy Conception of Anxiety. Anxiety Research; 2007; 1, pp. 77-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615808808248222]

Barrot, J. S. Using social networking sites as a language teaching and learning environment. Language Teaching; 2023; 56, 2 pp. 181-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444822000167]

Bartimote-Aufflick, K.; Bridgeman, A.; Walker, R.; Sharma, M.; Smith, L. The study, evaluation, and improvement of university student self-efficacy. Studies in Higher Education; 2016; 41, 11 pp. 1918-1942. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.999319]

Carr, C. T.; Hayes, R. A. Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication; 2015; 23, 1 pp. 46-65.

Chan, V. Fostering learner autonomy in an ESL classroom. TESL Canada Journal; 2000; 1, 41 pp. 75-86.

Crum, S.; Özçelik, Ö. Social Networks as Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments for Second Language Teaching in Higher Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning; 2024; 19, 1 pp. 4-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v19i01.42013]

Di Gangi, P. M.; Wasko, M. M. Social media engagement theory: Exploring the influence of user engagement on social media usage. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC); 2016; 28, 2 pp. 53-73.

Doan, L. Is feedback a waste of time? The students’ perspective. Journal of Perspective in Applied Academic Practice; 2013; 1, 2 pp. 3-10.

Ebadijalal, M.; Yousofi, N. The impact of mobile-assisted peer feedback on EFL learners’ speaking performance and anxiety: Does language make a difference?. Language Learning Journal; 2021; 51, 1 pp. 112-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1957990]

Ellis, R. Learning a second language through interaction; John Benjamins: 1999.

Falchikov, N. Improving learning through critical peer feedback and reflection [Paper presentation]. HERDSA Conference: Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education; Perth, Australia, July 8–12; 1996.

Gass, S. M.; Mackey, A.; Pica, T. The Role of Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal; 1998; 82, 3 pp. 299-307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01206.x]

Greenhow, C.; Lewin, C. Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology; 2016; 41, 1 pp. 6-30.

Hackett, G.; Betz, N. An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education; 1989; 20, 3 pp. 261-273.

Hattie, J.; Gan, M. Alexander, P.; Mayer, R. E. Instruction based on feedback. Handbook of research on learning and instruction; Routledge: 2017; pp. 290-324.

Hsieh, P. H. P.; Kang, H. S. Attribution and self-efficacy and their interrelationship in the Korean EFL context. Language Learning; 2010; 60, 3 pp. 606-627.

Hsieh, P. H. P.; Schallert, D. L. Implications from self-efficacy and attribution theories for an understanding of undergraduates’ motivation in a foreign language course. Contemporary Educational Psychology; 2008; 33, pp. 513-532.

Iberri-Shea, G. Using public speaking tasks in English language teaching. English Teaching Forum; 2009; 47, 2 pp. 18-36.

Istifci, I.; Ucar, A. D. A review of research on the use of social media in language teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning; 2021; 4, 3 pp. 475-488. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31681/jetol.922968]

Krueger, N. J.; Dickson, P. R. How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences; 1994; 25, 3 pp. 385-400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb01849.x]

Lantolf, J. P.; Thorne, S. L. Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development; Oxford University Press: 2006.

Lin, W.; Yang, S. C. Exploring Students’ Perceptions of Integrating Wiki Technology and Peer Feedback into English Writing Courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique; 2011; 10, pp. 88-103.

Liu, N.; Carless, D. Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education; 2006; 11, pp. 279-290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582]

Lucas, S. E. Wang, L. The role of public speaking in China’s English language curriculum. English public speaking in global context: Challenges and innovations; Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: 2009; pp. 3-24.

Maloney, E. What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Chronicle of Higher Education; 2007; 25, 18 B26.

Midwest Comprehensive Center. Student goal setting: An evidence-based practice; Midwest Comprehensive Center: 2018; Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED589978.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2025).

Mills, N.; Pajares, F.; Herron, C. A reevaluation of the role of anxiety: Self-efficacy, anxiety, and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals; 2006; 39, 2 pp. 276-294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02266.x]

Mills, N.; Pajares, F.; Herron, C. Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning; 2007; 57, 3 pp. 417-442.

Monteiro, V.; Carvalho, C.; Santos, N. N. Creating a supportive classroom environment through effective feedback: Effects on students’ school identification and behavioral engagement. Frontiers in Education; 2021; 6, 661736. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.661736]

Mulder, R.; Pearce, J.; Baik, C. Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education; 2014; 15, 2 pp. 157-171.

Mwalongo, A. I. Peer feedback: Its quality and students’ perceptions as a peer learning tool in asynchronous discussion forums. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education; 2012; 1, 11 pp. 69-77.

Nicolini, K.; Cole, A. Measuring peer feedback in face-to-face and online public-speaking workshops. Communication Teacher; 2019; 33, 1 pp. 80-93.

Page, B.; Hulse-Killacky, D. Development and validation of the corrective feedback self-efficacy instrument. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work; 1999; 24, 1 pp. 37-54.

Pajares, F.; Miller, M. Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology; 1994; 86, 2 pp. 193-203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193]

Perez, E.; Manca, S.; Fernández-Pascual, R.; Guckin, C. M. A systematic review of social media as a teaching and learning tool in higher education: A theoretical grounding perspective. Education and Information Technologies; 2023; 28, 9 pp. 11921-11950. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11647-2]

Pilli, L. LMS vs. SNS: Can social networking sites act as Learning Management Systems?. American International Journal of Contemporary Research; 2014; 4, 5 pp. 90-97.

Pleines, C. Understanding vicarious participation in online language learning. Distance Education; 2020; 41, 4 pp. 453-471. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1821605]

Prananto, K.; Cahyadi, S.; Lubis, F. Y.; Hinduan, Z. R. Perceived teacher support and student engagement among higher education students—A systematic literature review. BMC Psychology; 2025; 13, 1 112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02412-w]

Privitera, G. J. Statistics for the behavioral sciences; 3rd ed. SAGE Publications, Inc.: 2018.

Rahimi, A.; Abedini, A. The interface between EFL learners’ self-efficacy concerning listening comprehension and listening proficiency. Novitas Royal; 2009; 3, 1 pp. 14-28.

Ranjbar, M.; Amirian, S. M. R.; Vaghayei, F. A qualitative analysis of the effect of group oral presentation and peer assessment on EFL learners’ self-efficacy. Current Psychology; 2025; 44, 5 pp. 3747-3759. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07410-0]

Raoofi, S.; Tan, B. H.; Chan, S. H. Self-Efficacy in second/foreign language learning contexts. English Language Teaching; 2012; 5, 11 pp. 60-73.

Ratih, R.; Rustandi, A.; Febriani, R. B. Investigating students’ self-efficacy on the use of oral peer feedback in speaking subject. Jadila: Journal of Development and Innovation in Language and Literature Education; 2020; 1, 1 pp. 110-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52690/jadila.v1i1.16]

Rodríguez-González, E.; Castañeda, M. E. The effects and perceptions of trained peer feedback in L2 speaking: Impact on revision and speaking quality. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching; 2018; 12, 2 pp. 120-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1108978]

Schreiber, L. M.; Paul, G. D.; Shibley, L. R. The Development and Test of the Public Speaking Competence Rubric. Communication Education; 2012; 61, 3 pp. 205-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.670709]

Tan, K.-T. Using online discussion forums to support learning of paraphrasing. British Journal of Educational Technology; 2016; 48, 6 pp. 1239-1249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12491]

Tilfarlioğlu, F. T.; Ciftci, F. S. Supporting self-efficacy and learner autonomy in relation to academic success in EFL classrooms (A Case Study). Theory and Practice in Language Studies; 2011; 1, 10 pp. 1284-1294.

Tower, M.; Latimer, S.; Hewitt, J. Social networking as a learning tool: Nursing students’ perception of efficacy. Nurse Education Today; 2014; 34, 6 pp. 1012-1017. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.11.006]

Turnbull, D.; Chugh, R.; Luck, J. Learning management systems and social media: A case for their integration in higher education institutions. Research in Learning Technology; 2023; 31, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v31.2814]

Van Dinther, M.; Dochy, F.; Segers, M. Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review; 2011; 6, 2 pp. 95-108.

VanDoorn, G.; Eklund, A. A. Face to Facebook: Social media and the learning and teaching potential of symmetrical, synchronous communication. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice; 2013; 10, 1 pp. 68-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.53761/1.10.1.6]

Vygotsky, L. S. Cole, M.; John-Steiner, V.; Scribner, S.; Souberman, E. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes; Harvard University Press: 1978.

Wang, J.; Spencer, K.; Xing, M. Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language. System; 2009; 37, pp. 46-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.05.001]

Wertsch, J. V. Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action; Harvard University Press: 1991.

Wiemeyer, L.; Zeaiter, S. Social media in EFL teaching: Promoting (oral) communication skills in complex competency tasks. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics; 2015; 4, 2 pp. 193-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/dujal.4.2.04wie]

Xu, Q.; Dong, X.; Jiang, L. EFL learners’ perceptions of mobile-assisted feedback on oral production. TESOL Quarterly; 2017; 51, 2 pp. 408-417. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesq.335]

Xue, S.; Churchill, D. A review of empirical studies of affordances and development of a framework for educational adoption of mobile social media. Educational Technology Research and Development; 2019; 67, 5 pp. 1231-1257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09679-y]

Yeh, H.-C.; Tseng, S.-S.; Chen, Y.-S. Using online peer feedback through blogs to promote speaking performance. Educational Technology & Society; 2019; 22, 1 pp. 1-15.

Zhang, X.; Ardasheva, Y.; Austin, B. W. Self-efficacy and English public speaking performance: A mixed method approach. English for Specific Purposes; 2020; 59, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.02.001]

Zhang, X.; Ardasheva, Y.; Egbert, J.; Ullrich-French, S. C. Building Assessments for Self-Efficacy in English Public Speaking in China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher; 2019; 28, 5 pp. 411-420. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00441-9]

Zimmerman, B. Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology; 2000; 25, 1 pp. 82-91. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10620383]

Zimmerman, B. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice; 2002; 41, 2 pp. 64-70.