Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37098034›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

The impact of Danmaku-based and synchronous peer feedback on L2 oral performance: A mixed-method investigation.

Hualing Gong, Da Yan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Hualing GongSchool of Foreign Languages, Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University, Xinyang, China.
Da YanSchool of Foreign Languages, Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University, Xinyang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1265-9772

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advancement of research in education has propelled the augmentation of theoretical and practical knowledge in learning-oriented feedback. In recent years, the channels, modes, and orientations of feedback became manifold. Copious empirical evidence from the body of literature supported the strength of feedback in enhancing learning outcomes and promoting the motivation of learners. However, compared to the popularity in implementation and fruitfulness of findings in other educational domains, the application of state-of-the-art technology-enhanced feedback in fostering students' L2 oral abilities remain few and far between. To address the knowledge gap, the present study endeavored to investigate the effect of Danmaku-based and synchronous peer feedback on L2 oral performance and the acceptance thereof among students. Adopting a mixed-method design, the study recruited 74 (n = 74) undergraduate English majors from a Chinese university for a 16-week 2x2 experiment. The collected data were analyzed through statistical and thematic analysis respectively. The findings revealed that Danmaku-based and synchronous peer feed-back was impactful on students' performance in L2 oral production. Furthermore, the impacts of peer feedback on subdomains of L2 competence were statistically analyzed. Regarding students' perceptions, the incorporation of peer feedback was generally favored by participants who were satisfied and motivated in the learning process but lacked confidence in their assessment literacy. Furthermore, students expressed their agreement with the benefit of reflective learning and the subsequent enrichment in knowledge and horizon. The research was significant for its conceptual and practical contribution for follow-up researchers and educators in L2 education and learning-oriented feedback.

Indexed as

LearningStudentsEducational MeasurementFeedbackHumansPeer Group

Identifiers

PMID37098034
PMCPMC10128976

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.