Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35211057›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

The Students' Flow Experience With the Continuous Intention of Using Online English Platforms.

Hong Zhao, Asif Khan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hong ZhaoInternational College of Cultural Education, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, China.
Asif KhanDepartment of Marketing and Distribution Management, College of Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Built on the integrated theoretical framework of antecedents of flow and expectation confirmation model (ECM), this research investigates the way flow experience drives the online students' intention to engage in online English teaching platforms. This study focused on the online students engaged in online English learning platforms in Taiwan. A total of 500 online students were selected. An online survey was conducted with the help of a marketing research agency located in Taiwan. According to the results, the online students' flow experience was found to be in a significant relationship with continuous intention. The antecedents, including perceived enjoyment, challenge, and situational involvement, were found to be in a positive relationship with flow experience; however, confirmation and perceived vividness did not have significant effects on the flow. Furthermore, flow and confirmation were found to be in a significant relationship with perceived usefulness and satisfaction. Moreover, perceived usefulness was found to be in a significant relationship with satisfaction and continuous intention. Lastly, satisfaction was found to be in a significant relationship with continuous intention. Finally, the questions proposed in this research with their empirical findings offer profound understanding for establishing a well-devised online English learning platform that can motivate online learning. These results and managerial implications for online English language platforms are innovative and significant in practice.

Indexed as

antecedents of flowcontinuous intentionECMexpectation confirmation modelflow experienceflow theoryonline English learning

Identifiers

PMID35211057
PMCPMC8862747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.