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. 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

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. 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

. 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. 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

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.