Computer Assisted Language Learning

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Self-assessment first or peer-assessment first:

effects of video-based formative practice on
learners’ English public speaking anxiety and
performance

Chunping Zheng, Lili Wang & Ching Sing Chai

To cite this article: Chunping Zheng, Lili Wang & Ching Sing Chai (2021): Self-assessment
first or peer-assessment first: effects of video-based formative practice on learners’ English
public speaking anxiety and performance, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI:
10.1080/09588221.2021.1946562

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1946562

View supplementary material

Published online: 09 Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 89

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
Computer Assisted Language Learning
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1946562

Self-assessment first or peer-assessment first:

effects of video-based formative practice on
learners’ English public speaking anxiety and
performance
Chunping Zhenga, Lili Wanga and Ching Sing Chaib
a
Center for Research on Technology-Enhanced Language Education, School of Humanities, Beijing
University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China; bFaculty of Education, Department
Curriculum & Instruction, The Chinese University Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Although formative assessment has been recognized as an Foreign language
effective way for improving learning, scant attention has anxiety; public speaking
been paid to the specific design on the sequence of applying anxiety; formative
assessment; order of
formative assessment practice in computer-assisted language
formative assessment;
learning (CALL). Even less emphasis has been devoted to mixed-methods approach
the cognitive and affective outcomes of different orders of
formative assessment strategies on building students’ public
speaking competence. This mixed-method research employed
multi-source data to explore and explain the effects of two
different ways of sequencing video-based formative assess-
ment on English language learners’ public speaking anxiety
and their performance. Two intact classes in a 16-week
English public speaking course were randomly assigned to
two groups, 25 in the self-assessment-initiated (SAI) group
and 26 in the peer-assessment-initiated (PAI) group. Following
two different sequences of formative practice, both groups
were required to complete three formal English public
speeches. Both quantitative and qualitative findings indicated
that learners in the SAI group showed significantly lower
public speaking anxiety than those in the PAI group, whereas
learners in the PAI group showed significantly better public
speaking performance. Moreover, the findings showed that
SAI formative practice helped the learners to pay more atten-
tion to their delivery and anxiety levels in public speaking,
while PAI formative practice may have led the learners to
improve their proper use of English language. This research
indicated that the sequence of implementing different
modalities of assessment matters. Supported by video tech-
nology and CALL tools, different sequences in obtaining
varying sources of feedback can affect students’ public
speaking anxiety and competence. This study provides
refined understandings about the sequences of using video
technology in formative practice for alleviating the learners’

CONTACT Chunping Zheng [email protected] Center for Research on Technology-Enhanced

Language Education, School of Humanities, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. ZHENG ET AL.

public speaking anxiety and improving their performance.

The findings suggest that self-assessment should be arranged
first for learners with a higher-level of anxiety while
peer-assessment should be conducted first for learners with
a lower-level of English language proficiency.

1. Introduction
Communicating clearly and eloquently in public is one of the most crucial
and essential competences for higher educated professionals
(Murillo-Zamorano & Montanero, 2018; van Ginkel, Gulikers, Biemans, &
Mulder, 2015). Effective English public speaking (EPS) is a typical way of
strategic communication for delivering messages in a clear, consistent, and
convincing way (Lucas, 2013). EPS requires not only language proficiency,
but also critical thinking, creative ideas, and logical constructions (Lucas,
2009; Zhang, Ardasheva, & Austin, 2020). Therefore, it is fairly demanding
for learners to acquire the related skills and further improve their perfor-
mance in EPS. Speaking is also considered the most stressful and
anxiety-provoking skill for foreign language learners (Kralova & Tirpakova,
2019). Learners’ foreign language anxiety (FLA) is intensely manifested in
situations where they need to speak or deliver presentations in public
(Liang & Kelsen, 2018), and FLA inevitably impedes their communication.
Although FLA is a widely studied affective construct in second language
acquisition (SLA) (MacIntyre, 2017), classroom-based assessment of learners’
FLA is highly complex due to its dynamic and intricate nature. Effective
formative assessment practice has the potential to accelerate learner per-
formance and learning outcomes (Adachi, Tai, & Dawson, 2018; Black &
Wiliam, 2018; Vattoy & Smith, 2019), and thus helps to alleviate FLA.
Several studies have demonstrated the positive effects of formative activities
on easing learners’ FLA (e.g., Hung, 2019) and on improving their oral
presentation or public speaking skills (De Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2009;
van Ginkel et al., 2015). However, contextualized studies about FLA in
EPS courses have been lacking and the assessment of Chinese learners’
FLA in EPS courses is still under-investigated (e.g., Min, He, & Zhang, 2020).
Formative assessment refers to a process for providing learners with
immediate feedback and supplementary support during their learning,
which further enables them to adjust their learning and improving their
achievement of planned instructional outcomes (Tapingkae, Panjaburee,
Hwang, & Srisawasdi, 2020; Wongwatkit, Srisawasdi, Hwang, & Panjaburee,
2017). The definition of formative assessment has expanded in the past
decade from a conventional measurement view to a social-cultural practice
view (Leenknecht et al., 2021), as a “socially situated interpretive act”
(Boud et al., 2018, p. 1109). The practice view positions assessment as
an integral part of curriculum practices which end the separations of
Computer Assisted Language Learning 3

assessment from teaching and learning (Leenknecht et al., 2021). During

the process of formative assessment, self-, peer and teacher assessment
are three widely studied assessment strategies (Bolívar-Cruz &
Verano-Tacoronte, 2018). Although previous studies reported the positive
impact of the three modalities of formative assessment on learner per-
formance, the effects of sequencing different modalities of formative
assessment on learners’ public speaking anxiety and performance, are
still less frequently examined in the field of computer-assisted language
learning (CALL). Few studies have compared experimentally and sepa-
rately the effects of self-, peer and teacher assessment on learners’ oral
presentation performance (Murillo-Zamorano & Montanero, 2018). The
mechanism for how these three strategies may support each other is not
well defined, and there are limited theoretical models proposed for the
understanding of the sequential or cyclical order of various assessment
activities (Kollar & Fischer, 2010; Reinholz, 2016).
Video technology has long been used as a tool to bridge the gaps
between theories of formative assessment and classroom practices (e.g.,
Gotwals, Philhower, Cisterna, & Bennett, 2015; Martin & Siry, 2012).
Video cameras can capture and preserve learners’ verbal and nonverbal
elements of their speaking performance (Bourhis & Allen, 1998). The
recorded videos further allow learners to slow down, unpack, review and
critically evaluate their performance inside or out of the classroom
(Gotwals et al., 2015; Ritchie, 2016; Santagata, Zannoni, & Stigler, 2007).
By analyzing video recordings of speech performance, learners are able
to gain the observers’ perspective for a detailed understanding of their
own behavior (Fukkink, Trienekens, & Kramer, 2011; Quigley & Nyquist,
1992), conduct real-time self-evaluation against the assessment criteria
(Murphy & Barry, 2016; Simpson, Holden, Merrick, Dawson, & Bedford,
2019), and fine-tune their specific communicative skills (Bourhis & Allen,
1998). This study attempted to integrate video-based formative assessment
into an EPS course and explore the effects of two different sequences of
formative assessment. By employing multi-source data, we explored and
further explained the impact of different orders of video-based assessment
activities on learners’ EPS anxiety and their overall performance.

2. Literature review
2.1. Foreign language anxiety and public speaking anxiety
The field of SLA has produced rich research findings concerning learners’
foreign language anxiety (FLA) from a variety of perspectives. MacIntyre
and Gardner (1994) defined FLA as “the feeling of tension and appre-
hension specifically associated with second language (L2) contexts,
including speaking, listening, and learning” (p. 284). More recently,
4 C. ZHENG ET AL.

Horwitz (2017) referred to FLA as learners’ “distress at their inability

to be themselves and to connect authentically with other people through
the limitation of the new language” (p. 41). Scholars have explored the
nature of FLA (Horwitz, 2013; Şimşek & Dörnyei, 2017) and further
proposed various models for categorizing its components (e.g., Park,
2014). Follow-up studies not only focus on FLA in general (e.g., Jin &
Dewaele, 2018), but also on the skill-based FLA, such as listening-related
anxiety (e.g., Elkhafaifi, 2005), speaking-related anxiety (e.g., Kasbi &
Elahi Shirvan, 2017), anxiety in reading (e.g., Chow, Chiu, & Wong,
2018) and anxiety during writing (e.g., Chow et al., 2018). Other scholars
have probed the sources of FLA (e.g., Dewaele, 2017) and sought useful
antidotes (Yan & Horwitz, 2008). Horwitz (2017) recommended that
future studies should aim for a better understanding of anxious language
learners, and explore possible ways to reduce FLA.
Public speaking anxiety (PSA) is a specific type of communication
anxiety, and is regarded as “a situation specific social anxiety that arises
from the real or anticipated enactment of an oral presentation” (Bodie,
2010, p. 72). It is a common experience among learners especially with
a non-native language (Dewaele, 2002; Kralova & Tirpakova, 2019; Liang
& Kelsen, 2018; Liu & Jackson, 2008; Woodrow, 2006) and is a type of
speaking-related FLA among second language learners (Kasbi & Elahi
Shirvan, 2017). Following the definition of FLA proposed by previous
scholars (Bashori, van Hout, Strik, & Cucchiarini, 2020; Horwitz,
Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Scovel, 1991), public speaking anxiety in the
current study refers to a psychological condition induced by an arousal
of the autonomic nervous system, and this affective state is shown
through learners’ nervousness, tension, worry, and/or fear of delivering
speeches or giving oral presentations in public. Learners’ public speaking
anxiety is usually measured using a scale called Personal Report of
Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA) (McCroskey, 1970). The scale has
been widely used in foreign language learning context.
Many studies have investigated the sources of PSA, and have proposed
various ways of intervention to cope with it (see review, Ebrahimi,
Pallesen, Kenter, & Nordgreen, 2019). Previous studies have also high-
lighted the influence of educational and social-cultural factors on English
language learners’ speaking-related anxiety (Dewaele & Al-Saraj, 2013;
Liu, 2018). In the Chinese educational contexts, the instructional empha-
sis of teaching English is usually on language skills (e.g., a focus on
grammar, reading or writing practices) and there used to be a strong
examination-oriented culture of learning English. English language learn-
ers in China struggled a lot due to their incompetence in communicating
in fluent oral English or the so-called “speechless or Yaba English” in
the past several decades (Zheng & Li, 2015, Liu & Dai, 2003, p. 8).
Computer Assisted Language Learning 5

Since the lack of fluency in spoken English is a critical factor resulting

in learners’ PSA (He, 2013; LeFebvre, LeFebvre, & Allen, 2018), Yaba
English may aggravate Chinese EFL learners’ PSA. Moreover, a number
of social-cultural factors may also increase Chinese learners’ nervousness
or anxiety when speaking English in public, including fear of losing
face due to making mistakes or fear of negative feedback from peers,
teachers or parents (He, 2013; Yu, 2018). Concomitantly, EPS courses
are gaining increasing prominence and popularity in Chinese university
settings (Zheng & Li, 2015; Zhang et al., 2020). Therefore, there is a
need for pedagogical innovations to reduce learners’ negative emotions
(Elmenfi & Gaibani, 2016; Pribyl, Keaten, & Sakamoto, 2001; Su, 2015)
and to further enhance their English language proficiency and EPS skills
(Jing & Li, 2009; Zhang et al., 2020).

2.2. Formative assessment for public speaking performance and learner

anxiety

Scholars advocate the provision of timely and high-quality formative

feedback on learners’ performance to enhance their academic achieve-
ment (Irons, 2007; Nicol & Milligan, 2006; Taras, 2008). In the SLA
research, a considerable number of studies have reported the positive
impact of formative practice on learners’ achievement (e.g., Huang, 2016;
Kessler, Bikowski, & Boggs, 2012). More specifically, formative assessment
practice was uncovered to have meaningful effects on improving learners’
oral presentation or public speaking skills (De Grez et al., 2009; van
Ginkel, Gulikers, Biemans, & Mulder, 2017a; van Ginkel et al., 2015).
Different formative assessment strategies may produce differential cog-
nitive and affective effects on learners’ oral presentation performance.
The evaluation results from three assessment sources (self-, peer and
teacher) have not always been in concordance with each other (e.g., De
Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2012; Murillo-Zamorano & Montanero, 2018).
Murillo-Zamorano and Montanero (2018) suggested that more research
should be conducted to probe the resources, procedures and conditions
for ensuring quality formative feedback in terms of improving learners’
oral presentation skills. Our survey of the literature showed that scant
attention has been paid to the specific design, the ways or the sequence
of applying formative assessment practice in classroom teaching
(Hartmeyer, Stevenson, & Bentsen, 2016; Zahonero, 2019).
Previous studies also reported the effectiveness of the aforementioned
assessment strategies on learners’ affective factors (e.g., Han, 2018; Kim
& Lee, 2019; Zheng, Zhang, & Cui, 2020). On one hand, self-assessment
was found to be beneficial for alleviating FLA and enhancing confidence
and self-efficacy (e.g., Hung, 2019; van Dinther, Dochy, Segers, &
6 C. ZHENG ET AL.

Braeken, 2014). A blossoming English speaker may need to go through

self-assessment to build self-confidence before peer and teacher assess-
ment. In this case, sequencing formative practice with self-assessment
first may reduce learners’ FLA. On the other hand, going through peer
assessment first may heighten FLA, but it could also sharpen one’s focus
on relevant aspects of EPS that need improvement, and hence result in
better performance. Several studies have noted that peers in EPS courses
serve as the speakers’ audience, and their feedback during speech
rehearsals may further influence learners’ anxiety level (e.g., Tsang, 2020;
Zhang et al., 2020). As Zahonero (2019) stated, “a minimal change in
the assessment procedure may cause a strong immediate impact on the
affective sphere” (p. 27). Therefore, such sequencing effects need to be
studied so that more nuanced understanding could be derived and more
targeted strategies could be implemented to optimize the effects of
assessment strategies on different types of learners. However, a limited
number of studies have examined learners’ PSA when formative assess-
ment practice was involved (Buyukkarci, 2014).

2.3. The interconnectedness and order of self- and peer assessment

Given the heavy workload for teaching professions in higher education

setting (Lu, Zheng, & Li, 2018; Lam, 2016), learners’ collaborative practices
with self- and peer assessment were encouraged as alternative strategies for
teacher assessment out of the classroom. Previous studies have revealed
varying degrees of effectiveness of self- and peer assessment on students’
learning (González de Sande & Godino-Llorente, 2014; Pérez, Vidal-Puga,
& Juste, 2020). In particular, learners’ readiness for peer assessment were
found to be crucial for “equipping them with reflective thinking skills so
that they could generate useful insights from peer assessment activities for
self-improvement” (To & Panadero, 2019, p. 930). Logan (2009) analyzed
learners’ qualitative responses and found that self-assessment practice encour-
aged learners to look at themselves first, and thereby affecting their per-
formance in their future work. In this sense, conducting self-assessemt first
may help learners to be more prepared for the following formative procedures.
On the other hand, peer assessors usually serve as another source of
formative assessment (Topping, 1998), and can support learners to iden-
tify their own strengths and weaknesses, and further enhance their
self-reflection and problem-solving skills (Tseng & Tsai, 2007). Receiving
quality peer feedback before self-assessment may engage learners in
fruitful social interactions (Ajjawi & Boud, 2017) and encourage them
to become more active learners with better capacity to monitor, evaluate
and regulate their own learning (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018; Carless, 2013).
To and Panadero (2019) investigated specifically the interconnectedness
Computer Assisted Language Learning 7

between peers and learners’ self-assessment development and further

discussed the effect of peer assessment on self-assessment among first-year
undergraduates. Their qualitative inquiry showed that peers influenced
self-assessment through enriching learners’ understanding of work quality,
refining their subjective judgement and deepening self-reflection (To &
Panadero, 2019). Self- and peer assessment are two strategic processes
affecting language learners’ cognitive and affective variables. However,
to our knowledge, empirical investigations, particularly quasi-experimental
studies concerning the impact of the different orders of self- and peer
assessment are still lacking. The sequence of self- and peer assessment
and the time when these two assessment strategies should be incorpo-
rated into the assessment procedure may need further examination (Li
& Zhang, 2021; Özdemir-Yılmazer & Özkan, 2017).

2.4. Video-based formative assessment for public speaking performance

and learner anxiety

With the development of technology, increasing attention has been paid

to the pedagogical applications and potential benefits of technology-supported
formative assessment for learners’ language learning (Koh, Hong, & Tan,
2018; Spector, Ifenthaler, Sampson, et al., 2016; Zhan & So, 2017). Video
technology has long been used as a tool for formative assessment (e.g.,
Gotwals et al., 2015; Martin & Siry, 2012; Ritchie, 2016). Videos can
provide learners with verbal and nonverbal clues of their language learn-
ing performance (Bourhis & Allen, 1998). Lee and Wu (2006) reported
that peers and experienced teachers tended to provide more useful feed-
back on learners’ performance with the assistance of videos. Recent
empirical studies have reported the formative use of video-taped perfor-
mance as effective approaches for learners to overcome their negative
emotions, empower learner-centred self-reflection, and further enhance
their academic competence (e.g., Buyukkarci, 2014; Ge, 2019; Simpson
et al., 2019). However, the effects of video-based formative practice on
learners’ specific linguistic skills or their emotions have not been fully
addressed (Huisman, Saab, van den Broek, & van Driel, 2019).
Although technologies offer new possibilities for conducting formative
assessment and new ways of innovative instructional design, few studies
have investigated the specific procedure of conducting video-based for-
mative assessment in L2 classrooms (e.g., Zahonero, 2019). Our study
explored how a technology-supported learning environment could be
designed to afford distinct opportunities for reducing learners’ public
speaking anxiety and improving their performance. We designed a
video-based formative assessment intervention using two different
8 C. ZHENG ET AL.

sequences in an EPS course. Based on our instructional intervention,

we attempted to answer the following three research questions:

1. What are the effects of video-based formative assessment using

two different sequences on English language learners’ public speak-
ing anxiety?
2. What are the effects of the two sequences of assessment on their
public speaking performance?
3. What are the learners’ perceptions of the two different sequences
of assessment?

3. Method
3.1. Research design
This study adopted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach
(Creswell, 2014; Riazi & Candlin, 2014) to answer the above three
research questions. A quasi-experiment was designed and both quanti-
tative and qualitative data were collected and analysed to provide answers
to the research questions.

3.1.1. The two different conditions

The difference in the two conditions for the teaching experiment was
the sequence of the video-based formative assessment practice: namely
the self-assessment-initiated (SAI) group and the peer-assessment-ini-
tiated (PAI) group. As indicated in Figure 1, for the SAI group, the
learners were asked to complete the video-based self-assessment,
video-based peer-assessment, teacher assessment, and video-based
self-reflection for three individual public speaking tasks. For the PAI
group, the students were required to complete the video-based
peer-assessment, video-based self-assessment, teacher assessment, and
video-based self-reflection for the same individual public speaking
tasks. This constituted the independent variable. The dependent vari-
ables were the learners’ perceptions of their public speaking anxiety
and their public speaking performance.

3.1.2. Participants
A total of 51 sophomores (32 males and 19 females) aged 18-21 years
old were invited to participate in the study. The participants were ran-
domly assigned to two groups, with 25 students (15 male and 10 female)
in the SAI group and 26 (18 male and 8 female) in the PAI group. All
Computer Assisted Language Learning 9

Figure 1. The quasi-experiment design of this study (Adapted from Zheng & Li, 2015).

the participants had learnt English for over 5 years. Their self-reported
English proficiency was at the lower intermediate level.

3.2. Research context and instructional design

3.2.1. Research context

The current study was conducted in an EPS course at a comprehensive
university in northern China. The course lasted for 16 weeks with a 2-h
class period per week. The main course objectives include improving
learners’ ability to write and deliver English public speeches, enhancing
their intercultural communication skills, and fostering their competence
in critical and creative thinking. This public speaking course has been
taught at the university about ten years with the accepted course syllabus
10 C. ZHENG ET AL.

(Lucas & Yin, 2011) and an effective instructional design (Wang, Liu,
& Zheng, 2020; Zheng, Li, & Lu, 2012). In order to guarantee the validity
of the measurements and public speaking tasks, we invited two experts
in the field of applied linguistics with over 20 years of experience in
teaching public speaking to co-design the course and the speech topics
before the experiment. It uses the classic and also the leading public
speaking textbook, The Art of Public Speaking by Lucas and Yin (2011),
and follows its sample teaching plan.

3.2.2. Instructional design

During the course, the participants performed three public speaking
tasks according to their assigned condition. The first task was a 3-minute
introductory speech for the learners to introduce themselves in a creative
way to their classmates. The second task was a 4-5 minutes informative
speech that inform the audience about an object, concept, process or
event. The third task was a 5-6 minutes persuasive speech which is
designed to persuade the audience for or against a question of policy.
As shown in Figure 1, the three formal speeches were conducted in the
Week 6, Week 11 and Week 16 during the instruction weeks (from
Week 1 to Week 16) in the classroom. There are three main instruction
week blocks for three different speaking tasks, namely Week 2 to Week

Figure 2. The instructional design for each formal English public speaking assignment.Note:
S = student, T = teacher, TA = teaching assistant, SA = self-assessment, PA = peer-assessment
Computer Assisted Language Learning 11

6 for the introductory speech, Week 7 to Week 11 for the informative

speech, and Week 12 to Week 16 for the persuasive speech.
Figure 2 depicts the specific design for the learner to conduct the
formative assessment practice. The learners were first asked to compose
their speech drafts (using Microsoft Word) followed by video-taping
their own performance (by smart phones or video cameras). Then, they
completed self- or peer assessment out of class according to their
assigned conditions, which usually took one week after class (from step
1 to step 3). During this stage, the learners also completed the self- and
peer-grading and wrote their comments based on the five criteria listed
in the EPS performance rubrics as shown in Table 1 (numerical grades
combined with written qualitative feedback). After this, they revised the
draft and videotaped their performance again (step 4), which usually
took another week after class. In step 5 and step 6, the learners sub-
mitted the revised drafts and the videotaped performance to the teacher
through instant messengers. The teacher then provided her comments
for the drafts and the performance based on the EPS performance
rubrics through instant messengers or emails, which took another week
after class. The learners revised the speech drafts again before presenting
the final version in class (step 7). The last steps 8 to 11 were carried
out in the classroom. The teaching assistant (TA) video-taped the final
speech delivery while the teacher awarded the grades and provided
immediate feedback. Then, the learners were given their own
video-recordings and were required to conduct video-based self-reflection
on their public speaking anxiety and overall performance immediately
that week.

3.2.3. The instructor’s role

The first author, who was also the course instructor, spent the first week
familiarizing the learners with the assessment procedure as well as the
evaluation criteria. She tasked the learners to make a one-minute English
self-introduction which was videoed in class, and trained them in con-
ducting self- and peer assessment of three speech tasks based on the
video. Then, over the next 15 weeks, she spent three 5-week blocks
teaching the course materials and guiding the learners to improve their
EPS performance in class. She also trained the learners in conducting
video-based self- and peer assessment after class by demonstrating the
video-based formative assessment processes and the use of the EPS
performance rubrics (as shown in Table 1). Additional online assistance
was also offered upon request. The second author, who was the teaching
assistant, assisted the first author in video-taping the learners’ public
speaking in class.
12 C. ZHENG ET AL.

Table 1. The rubrics for evaluating learners’ EPS performance by Lucas and Yin (2011).
Parts Criteria Grade*
1. Gained attention and interest 1 2 3 4 5
2. Introduced topic clearly 1 2 3 4 5
Introduction 3. Related topic to audience 1 2 3 4 5
4. Main points clear 1 2 3 4 5
5. Organization well planned 1 2 3 4 5
6. Language accurate 1 2 3 4 5
7. Language clear 1 2 3 4 5
8. Language appropriate 1 2 3 4 5
Body 9. Connectives effective 1 2 3 4 5
10. Prepared audience for ending 1 2 3 4 5
11. Reinforced central idea 1 2 3 4 5
Conclusion 12. Vivid ending 1 2 3 4 5
13. Began speech without rushing 1 2 3 4 5
14. Maintained strong eye contact 1 2 3 4 5
15. Avoided distracting mannerisms 1 2 3 4 5
16. Articulated words clearly 1 2 3 4 5
17. Used pauses effectively 1 2 3 4 5
18. Used vocal variety to add impact 1 2 3 4 5
19. Communicated enthusiasm for topic 1 2 3 4 5
Delivery 20. Departed from lectern without rushing 1 2 3 4 5
General comments
*
1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Average, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent

3.3. Instruments
3.3.1. Two instruments
This study adopted two instruments, namely the Personal Report of
Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA) and the EPS performance rubrics for
collecting the quantitative data. The first instrument, the PRPSA survey
was originally developed by McCroskey (1970) and its psychometric
properties were further verified by a number of recent studies (e.g.,
Coskun, 2017; Mörtberg, Jansson-Fröjmark, Pettersson, &
Hennlid-Oredsson, 2018). As shown in the Supplementary material-1,
it consists of 34 items measured with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly
Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree). The
Cronbach’s alpha of the instrument ranged from .84 to .97 (e.g., Coskun,
2017; Mörtberg et al., 2018), indicating its reliability for evaluating
learners’ EPS anxiety. According to Mörtberg and his colleagues’ inves-
tigation (2018), the convergent validity of the PRPSA was also evidenced
by strong-to-moderate positive correlations to a revised version of PRPSA
(r = .32 to .52, p < .01).
The second instrument is the EPS performance rubrics designed by
Lucas and Yin (2011). As indicated by Table 1, the rubrics consist of
five parts. The first four parts are measured with a 5-point Likert scale
Computer Assisted Language Learning 13

(1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Average, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent) and focuses on

the introduction, main body, conclusion and delivery skills of learners’
public speeches. The fifth part is an open-ended response where the
learners, peers, or the teacher could write their comments and sugges-
tions for the speaker. The rubrics address the learners’ appropriate and
accurate use of language in speeches, and also their specific techniques
in speech delivery (Lucas & Yin, 2011). Our previous studies had used
it as a measurement (Zheng, Li, & Lu, 2012) and the reliability is
acceptable, with Cronbach’s alpha for the four sub-scales ranging from
.79 to .87. Zhang and her colleagues (2020) also used the similar rubrics
designed by Lucas (2010) to assess English language learners’ overall
performance in public speaking with different topics. Therefore, the two
rubrics used in this research were both accepted instruments for eval-
uating learners’ performance while delivering various speech topics in
the field of English public speaking.

3.3.2. Scoring of EPS performance

Previous studies have reported some critical variance of self-, peer, and
teacher assessment for the same oral presentation (e.g., De Grez et al.,
2012; Langan et al., 2008). Therefore, to maintain the consistency and
reliability of the grading of learners EPS performance in the pre- and
post-tests, we adopted the teacher’s assessment grades (the mean score
of the first four parts of the rubrics) for indicating learners’ public
speaking performance. To further ensure the reliability of the teachers’
assessment, the second author reviewed the first author’s scores with
reference to the video-recordings of the learners’ formal public speeches
in class to further guarantee the objectiveness of the grading. A third
rater who had more than 5 years’ teaching experiences for the same
course was invited to score independently based on the video-recordings
of the learners’ formal public speeches. The inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s
Kappa = .93) indicated high consistency of the teachers’ scoring. Finally,
an overall negotiation on learners’ performance was conducted among
the authors and the independent rater to arrive at one final grade.

3.4. Procedure and data collection

At the beginning of the course, the authors explained the research

procedure and research purposes to the learners, and all the participants
signed the consent form and voluntarily participated in the research.
With their consent, multi-source data, including their self-report survey
responses, formative assessment files, interview audiotapes and tran-
scribed scripts were collected. Before the start of the intervention, the
14 C. ZHENG ET AL.

learners were asked to respond to the survey of the Personal Report

of Public Speaking Anxiety as the pre-test scores for their public speak-
ing anxiety.
During the course, the EPS tasks were video-recorded as part of the
data collection. Both self- and peer-assessment were conducted out of the
classroom. Moreover, all EPS tasks were scored by the teacher immediately
after learners’ performance in the classroom. Teachers’ scoring of learners’
first formal public speech was used as the pre-test scores to indicate the
speakers’ initial public speaking performance. In addition, we also asked
the learners to conduct self-reflection after watching the video recordings
of their formal public speeches immediately after they completed the
speech. As shown in the Supplementary material-2, we used semi-structured
outlines to guide the learners to write self-reflection journals after each
EPS task. The students’ reflective journals were compiled for data analysis.
At the end of the course, post-test using survey of PRPSA is collected
for their EPS anxiety. Then, we used the teacher scoring of the learners’
final formal public speech as the post-test score for their EPS perfor-
mance. In addition, five participants from PAI group and three from
SAI group were further selected for follow-up interviews to gain nuanced
understanding of the participants’ experiences. The participants were
selected purposefully as they wrote the longest responses about their
perceptions of the course and provided the most constructive suggestions
for the course in their journals. The interview was conducted with 10
guiding questions (Supplementary material-3). The whole interviewing
process was audiotaped and further transcribed.

3.5. Data analysis

Two stages of data analysis were employed to address the three research
questions. In the first stage, the quantitative data included learners’
self-reported data concerning their EPS anxiety in the pre- and post-tests
through the PRPSA questionnaire, and the qualitative data were their
self-reflection journals about their experience of EPS anxiety based on
their final speech. ANCOVA analysis was conducted to explore the pos-
sible effects of video-based formative practice on learners’ public speaking
anxiety. Huck and McLean (1975) showed that ANCOVA is generally the
most appropriate analytic method when testing for group differences in
change from the pre-test to the post-test in a randomized pre-post design.
“Because the mean of the pre-test scores for the different groups will be
equal in the long run due to random assignment and the measurement
of the pre-test prior to the initiation of the treatment, ANCOVA is useful
when attempting to assess group differences in change within the context
of randomized studies” (Rausch, Maxwell, & Kelley, 2003, p. 471).
Computer Assisted Language Learning 15

Therefore, ANCOVA was employed to analyse the post-test scores by

“using the pre-test scores as the covariate to control for pre-existing dif-
ferences on the dependent variable” (Newsom, 2021, p. 1). To further
explain the quantitative results, we conducted thematic analysis
(Attride-Stirling, 2001; Boyatzis, 1998) on their self-reflection journals to
identify and further categorize learners’ differentiated experience of EPS
anxiety. The prominent themes were put into different categories. Then,
we conducted the Chi-square test based on the frequency of different
categories to further explain the effects of video-based formative practice
on learners’ public speaking anxiety in the two different groups.
In the second stage, the quantitative data were the teacher’s scorings
of the learners’ public speaking performance in the first and final formal
speeches. The qualitative data were their self-reflection journals on their
public speaking performance. In this stage, we also conducted the
ANCOVA analysis first. Then we used qualitative data for thematic
analysis and further explained the quantitative results.
As for the qualitative analysis in the above two stages, we followed
the procedures for the systematic interrogation of qualitative data
(Cardenas-Claros & Gruba, 2014; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The most
prominent themes concerning learners’ perceptions of video-based for-
mative practice were summarized. Eventually, we determined four themes
in learners’ perceptions of English public speaking anxiety in the final
speech: no anxiety, decreased anxiety, feeling better but still very anxious
and increased anxiety. We also identified two main categories of learners’
English public speaking performance in the final speech, including
delivery and English language proficiency. Tables 3 and 5 summarizes
the results of our coding. The qualitative data were used to further
explain, refine and clarify the results of the previous two stages.
All of the quantitative data were analysed using SPSS 25.0, while the
qualitative data were analyzed using NVivo 11.0. The thematic analysis
of the qualitative data was conducted by the first and second authors
independently (the overall inter-coder reliability is .89). After the inde-
pendent coding, the first and second authors identified the differences
and negotiated to arrive at consensus.

4. Results
4.1. Different sequences of video-based formative practice for learners’
public speaking anxiety
4.1.1. Quantitative results
To examine the effects of video-based formative practice on easing EFL
learners’ public speaking anxiety, ANCOVA was employed to analyze the
post-test scores by using the pre-test scores as the covariate to exclude
16 C. ZHENG ET AL.

Table 2. Statistics of pre- and post-experiment public speaking anxiety and ANCOVA
Summary.
Pre-test Post-test Univariate ANCOVA
Group Mean SD Mean SD Mean (adjusted) Std. error F eta2
Peer-assessment-initiated 97.35 17.23 93.12 14.08 94.87a 2.97 4.87* .09
(PAI) group
Self-assessment-initiated 111.04 18.96 86.36 15.15 85.34a 3.03
(SAI) group
Note: *p < .05
a
Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Anxiety_Pre = 104.06.

Table 3. Chi-square test for different categories of English public speaking anxiety in the
final speech.
Feeling better but
Groups No anxiety Decreased anxiety still very anxious Increased anxiety
SAI group 6 (24.0, 1.2) 16 (64.0, 1.3) 1 (4.0, −2.8) 2 (8.0, 0)
PAI group 3 (11.54, −1.2) 12 (46.15, −1.3)9 (34.62, 2.8) 2 (7.7, 0)
Chi-square test X = 7.955, df = 3, p < .05
2

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages and adjusted standardized residuals, * p < .05

the impact of the pre-test. The non-significant interaction of the inde-

pendent variable and the covariate of EPS anxiety showed that F = 1.80
(p > .05), implying that the assumption of homogeneity of the regression
slope was met. As shown in Table 2, the ANCOVA result showed that
there is a significant difference (F = 4.87, p = .04 < .05) after excluding
the impact of the pre-test scores, indicating that the SAI group showed
significantly lower public speaking anxiety compared with the PAI group.
The adjusted mean of the SAI group was 85.34, which was lower than
that of the PAI group (94.87), showing that video-based self-assessment-ini-
tiated formative practice can significantly ease EFL learners’ public speak-
ing anxiety.

4.1.2. Qualitative results

EFL learners’ reflection through journals has the potential to yield a
richer understanding of their perceptions of how video-based formative
practice functioned in terms of easing learners’ public speaking anxiety.
Therefore, we conducted thematic analysis based on the learners’
self-reflection journals; four main categories of EPS anxiety in the final
speech emerged: learners with “no anxiety anymore,” “obviously decreased
anxiety,” “feelings of still being very anxious” and “increased anxiety.”
We conducted the Chi-square test based on the learners’ self-reported
frequency of these four categories.
As shown in Table 3, a statistically significant association between the
sequence of video-based formative practice to learners’ self-reflected expe-
rience of EPS anxiety in the final speech were revealed (X2 = 7.955, p <
.05). Table 3 shows that only one student (4%) in the SAI group reported
Computer Assisted Language Learning 17

that she still felt very anxious in the final speech, while nine students
(34.62%) in the PAI group claimed that they still experienced a high level
of anxiety in the final speech. This result implies a sharp difference
between the groups in terms of the number of students who still felt very
anxious in the final speech. According to Sharpe (2015), when conducting
the Chi-square test, the associations can be considered to be significant
when the absolute values of the adjusted residuals are larger than 1.96
(p < .05). We conducted the post hoc test of the Chi-square test, and the
absolute values for the adjusted residual of “Feeling better but still very
anxious” was 2.8 (> 1.96, p < .05). We claim that there is a significant
difference between these two groups in terms of the numbers of students
who experienced a high level of anxiety in the final speech. Generally
speaking, more students in the PAI group still felt very anxious in the
final speech. The results further confirmed our ANCOVA results that
more students experienced no anxiety or a decreased level of anxiety after
three formal English public speeches in class.

4.2. Different sequences of video-based formative practice for learners’

overall performance
4.2.1. Quantitative results
This study further employed ANCOVA to analyze post-experiment public
speaking performance with pre-test scores as the covariate. The
non-significant interaction of the independent variable and the covariate
of public speaking performance showed that F = .04 (p = .84 > .05),
implying that the use of ANCOVA was appropriate.
As stated in Table 4, the ANCOVA result showed that video-based
peer-assessment-initiated formative practice had a significant impact on
EFL learners’ public performance with F = 8.88 (p = .01 < .05) after excluding
the impact of the pre-test scores. The adjusted mean of the PAI group was
4.42, which was lower than that of the SAI group (4.31), suggesting that
video-based peer-assessment-initiated formative practice can improve EFL
learners’ public speaking performance.

Table 4. Statistics of pre- and post-experiment public speaking performance and ANCOVA
Summary.
Pre-test Post-test Univariate ANCOVA
Group Mean SD Mean SD Mean(adjusted) Std. error F eta2
Peer-assessment-initiated 4.18 .36 4.43 .20 4.42a .03 8.88* .16
(PAI) group
Self-assessment-initiated 4.11 .36 4.29 .18 4.31a .03
(SAI) group
Note: *p < .05
a
Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Proficiency_Pre = 4.15.
18 C. ZHENG ET AL.

Table 5. Chi-square test for improved English public speaking performance in the final
speech.
Frequency Frequency
Category SAI Group PAI Group Subcategory SAI Group PAI Group
Communicating
confidently and
naturally 22 (55, 0.9) 16 (44.4, -0.9)
Engaging audience
effectively 5 (12.5, 0.2) 4 (11.1, -0.2)
Using nonverbal
gestures appropriately 5 (12.5, -.80) 7 (19.4, .80)
Using audial or visual
means to add impact 8 (20, -.50) 9 (25, .50)
Delivery 40 36 Chi-square test X2 =1.24, df = 3, p = .73 > .05
English language 29 33 Language accurate 8 (27.6, −.60) 11 (34.4, .60)
proficiency Language fluent 14 (48.3, 1.9) 8 (25, −1.9)
Language expressive 7 (24.1, −1.4) 13 (40.6, −1.4)
and appropriate
Chi-square test X2 = 3.78, df = 2, p = .15 > .05
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages and adjusted standardized residuals, * p < .05

4.2.2. Qualitative data

We then conducted thematic analysis based on learners’ self-reflection
on their overall EPS performance. Two main thematic categories, learn-
ers’ improved English language proficiency and public speaking delivery,
with 13 subcategories emerged. We calculated the frequency of the
sub-categories and used the Chi-square test based on the frequency and
percentage data.
As shown in Table 5, there was no statistically significant association
between the sequence of video-based formative practice to learners’
self-reported improved public speaking delivery (X2 = 1.24, df = 3, p
= .73). Moreover, we found no statistically significant association
between the sequence of video-based formative practice to English
language proficiency (X2 = 3.78, df = 2, p = .15). According to Sharpe
(2015), when conducting Chi-square tests, the associations can be con-
sidered to be significant when the absolute values of the adjusted
residuals are larger than 1.96 (p < .05). Therefore, there seems to be
no significant difference between the two groups in terms of their
improved delivery skills or language proficiency in the final speech
according to their own perceptions of performance in the self-reflections.

4.3. Learners’ perceptions of two sequences of video-based formative

practice

One objective of employing qualitative data in mixed-method research

is to “explain, refine, and clarify the quantitative findings” (Creswell,
Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003; Ebadi & Rahimi, 2018, p. 638).
In the current research, we analysed learners’ self-reflection journals
Computer Assisted Language Learning 19

and the transcribed interviews to further elaborate the learners’ percep-

tions of the effects of our video-based formative instructional design
on their public speaking anxiety and overall performance.

4.3.1. The positive effects of self-assessment-initiated practice on learners’

public speaking anxiety
Drawing upon learners’ self-reflection journals and interview transcripts,
the first and most prominent theme concerning their perceptions of the
formative practice was the positive effects of video-based SAI practice.
Compared with learners in the PAI group, it seemed that the learners
in the SAI group had more time and opportunities to video-tape their
performance to achieve their best before asking their peers to conduct
peer-assessment. Moreover, the video-based self-assessment helped the
learners self-examine their performance, mainly in terms of delivery
such as their gestures, eye-contact, and interaction with their audience,
and to be more aware of their own strengths and weaknesses in their
delivery. The following excerpts indicate the positive effects of SAI
practice on the learners’ public speaking anxiety. As practice makes
perfect, repeated rehearsals in private helped the learners become more
familiar with their speech drafts, and more confident and fluent in their
expressions, which further eased their anxiety and improved their deliv-
ery when speaking in public.
“When I conducted self-assessment before peer-assessment, I would
conduct self-evaluation on how I controlled my anxiety, resonated with
the audience by stimulating their interest, and made proper transitions in
time. Self-evaluation helped me better understand myself and identify
my weakness.” (Interview transcript by WZR in the SAI group)
“During my self-assessment, I video-taped my rehearsals several times.
I would send the video of my best performance to my peers. The more
practice and rehearsals I conducted, the more fluent my speech was, and
the less anxious I felt.” (Interview transcript by CWM in the SAI group)

4.3.2. The positive effects of peer-assessment-initiated practice on learners’

english proficiency
Based on our analysis of the self-reflection journals, learners in the PAI
group showed positive perceptions of the roles of PAI practice in improv-
ing their English language proficiency. To be specific, students noted
that their peers helped them to improve their English expressions by
providing valuable feedbacks before they conducted self-assessment. The
peer students served as another pair of eyes looking at the speech draft
at the initial stage of formative assessment, which helped the learners
to identify their inappropriate use of grammar and English expressions.
20 C. ZHENG ET AL.

“My peers were very serious about my speech drafts. Generally,

those closely involved cannot see as clearly as those outside. Peer
assessment helped me notice my mistakes in English expressions
before I realized myself through the self-assessment. Their feedback
was of great value to me.” (Reflection journal of YHM in the
PAI group)
“Generally, those closely involved cannot see as clearly as those out-
side.” (A saying from Stories to Awaken the World, Reflection journal
of YHM in the PAI group)
We also found that learners in the PAI group tended to make more
efforts to discuss with their peers and get peers’ feedback on their lan-
guage use in the speech drafts. The following excerpts from the interview
transcripts indicate that peer assessment is a useful way for learners to
identify their grammar mistakes and to improve their language accuracy.
“In the peer assessment, my peers mainly focused on the grammar
of my speech drafts. When they watched my speech video, they focused
on the fluency of my speech and gestures. We discussed the revision
of speech drafts which sometimes gave me a new idea or perspective
in self-assessment.” (Interview transcript of YHM in the PAI group)
“My partner is really good at English and when she conducted
peer-assessment, she would pay a lot of attention to the English language
of my speech…She would help me to correct grammatical mistakes,
improve the structure of my speech, find more appropriate words to
improve my expressions. I feel it is really good.” (Interview transcript
of ZSY in the PAI group)
“When I conducted peer assessment with my partner, he mainly
focused on the grammar and expressions of my speech drafts, and my
pronunciation. If we had disagreement upon the word usage, we dis-
cussed a lot or might look them up in a dictionary.” (Interview transcript
of CY in the PAI group)

5. Discussion
As discussed in the literature review, it remains unclear and underex-
plored whether the sequence of implementing the different modes of
assessment may affect learners’ academic performance and other related
affective variables (Murillo-Zamorano & Montanero, 2018; Reinholz,
2016). The current study designed two different sequences of video-based
formative practice in an EPS course. Multiple sources of data, including
quantitative data based on self-report surveys and qualitative data based
on self-reflection journals and interviews, were collected and analyzed
to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of
video-based formative practice on learners’ English public speaking
Computer Assisted Language Learning 21

anxiety and performance. Our quantitative data revealed that learners

in the SAI group showed lower public speaking anxiety than those in
the PAI group. The qualitative data supplemented the quantitative find-
ings that the SAI group students reported significantly less experience
of anxiety and also experienced reduced levels of anxiety in the final
speech than the PAI group. Secondly, as for EFL learners’ public speaking
performance, the quantitative results indicated that learners in the PAI
group showed significantly better public speaking performance compared
with those in the SAI group in the final speech. Finally, learners’
self-reflection and interview data identified the learners’ perceptions of
the instructional design and provided insightful suggestions for better
designing formative practice for EPS courses.

5.1. Video-based self-assessment-initiated formative practice and EPS

anxiety

Our first finding suggested that the sequence of formative assessment

practice had a differential impact on alleviating learners’ EPS anxiety.
The quantitative results showed that video-based SAI formative practice
had a significantly stronger influence on relieving learners’ stress in the
process of speech delivery. This finding is in accordance with previous
studies on the benefits of conducting self-assessment or self-feedback
for learners’ affective levels, such as alleviating foreign language anxiety
(e.g., Hung, 2019), and enhancing confidence (e.g., Hung, 2019) and
self-efficacy (e.g., van Dinther et al., 2014). Our findings also show that
video-based SAI formative practice provided learners with more oppor-
tunities to rehearse and to conduct self-evaluation before they conducted
peer-assessment and made formal speeches in class. Learners in China
have been reported to experience PSA due to a number of cultural
reasons (e.g., Chien, Hwang, & Jong, 2020; Zhang & Ardasheva, 2019).
Chinese learners tend to fear losing “face” due to making mistakes, or
fear getting negative feedback from their peers. Therefore, compared
with PAI practice, conducting self-assessment first helped learners grad-
ually improve their speeches within their comfort zone, which ensured
that they could avoid embarrassment, thus saving face and further
alleviating their anxiety (Hung, 2019). Also, in accordance with Hung
(2019), through recurring video-based self-assessment practice such as
rehearsals and video-based self-evaluation, learners can adjust their
emotional status and enhance their confidence, and further alleviate
their English public anxiety in the follow-up peer assessment and teacher
assessment in class.
As Logan (2009) indicated, learners perceive self and peer assessment
differently concerning their effects on learning. Since self-assessment
22 C. ZHENG ET AL.

practice encouraged the learners to look at themselves (Logan, 2009), we

claim that video-based SAI practice led them to focus more on watching
themselves presenting and reflecting how they performed through the
camera first, thereby encouraging them to rehearse frequently to avoid
their awkward or anxious behaviors before the camera or the public. As
a result, they may have become more confident and showed lower levels
of public speaking anxiety and decreased communication apprehension
(Dupagne, Stacks, & Giroux, 2007) in the later delivery compared with
the PAI group. The self-directed viewing of learners’ own speeches coupled
with explicit focus on “controlling their anxiety” might result in their
improved self-efficacy (Brown & Morrissey, 2004), positive perceptions of
themselves (van Ginkel, Gulikers, Biemans, & Mulder, 2017b) and lower
levels of apprehension (Hinton & Kramer, 1998).

5.2. Video-based peer-assessment-initiated formative practice and EPS

performance

Our second finding showed that the video-based PAI formative practice
had significantly better effects on improving EFL learners’ EPS perfor-
mance. The results echoed earlier findings on the positive effects of
peer-assessment on learners’ language competence (e.g., Ebadi & Rahimi,
2018; Murillo-Zamorano & Montanero, 2018), and their public speaking
performance (van Ginkel et al., 2017a). In the current study, video-based
PAI formative practice helped to bridge the gap between learners’ cur-
rent and ideal EPS performance (Hung, 2019). It is in line with the
earlier findings about the advantages of peer assessment for enabling
the learners to improve their speech drafts by seeing the different ways
which others had revised or organized their work (Logan, 2009). As
indicated by learners’ statements in their reflection journals, the better
effects of PAI practice on their EPS performance may also be due to
the peers being more alert to mistakes that the presenter tends to take
for granted, and there is another pair of eyes looking at the performance
at the initial stage of formative assessment. During PAI formative prac-
tice, the peers not only watched learners’ video-recordings but also
reviewed the manuscripts of learners’ public speeches. As outsiders, they
might be more obliged to provide feedback on the speakers’ English
expressions in addition to their performance presented through videos.
Peers’ seriousness or responsibility in giving feedback enhanced the
learners’ willingness to speak, and further increased their oral presen-
tation competence (Mitchell & Bakewell, 1995). Therefore, the PAI
practice seemed to be more effective for learners to identify their
strengths and weaknesses in language use and speech performance with
the help of ‘those outside’.
Computer Assisted Language Learning 23

Through the PAI formative practice, the learners received initial

feedback from their peers, who may have provided useful suggestions
for making their English speeches more apprehensible. Their peers also
provided them with a new perspective for improving their EPS perfor-
mance. The learners’ English language expressions were thus improved
by learner-external variables in a collaborative language learning eco-
system. Our findings thus highlight the crucial role of collaboration
between learners and their peers for enhancing their active learning
and improving their language accuracy (Wang, 2015). As shown in the
reflection journals, learners in the SAI assessment group tended to pay
more attention to their delivery instead of their language use in the
speech. One possible interpretation is that self-assessment may eradicate
some grammatical errors or inappropriate language use at the beginning
of the formative assessment and reduce opportunities for more open
observation of their language use. On the contrary, the PAI assessment
practice may have brought to the surface many more mistakes since
there is another pair of eyes watching without bias, and it may have
sensitized the learners to looking at their own performance from more
perspectives.

5.3. Learners’ perceptions of the two different sequences of

assessment

Our findings revealed learners’ positive perceptions of the video-based

formative practice regarding their EPS anxiety and overall performance,
and also provided illuminating suggestions for the optimization of for-
mative assessment sequences in future EPS classes. First, learners in the
SAI group highlighted the positive effects of video-based self-assessment
on self-managing their anxiety. This finding echoes a number of previous
studies on the positive effects of self-assessment on learners’ affective
status (e.g., Hung, 2019; van Dinther et al., 2014). Second, the benefits
of peer assessment for identifying their strengths and weaknesses and
improving their language accuracy were explicated by learners in the
PAI group. The findings were consistent with previous investigations on
effects of collaboration between students on learners’ language learning
(e.g., Huisman et al., 2019; Zhang & Ardasheva, 2019). The learners
also indicated the significance of teacher feedback for their EPS perfor-
mance, which further echoed previous studies’ findings on its principal
value for learners’ language learning (van Ginkel et al., 2017a). Generally,
the three forms of video-based formative practice played differentiated
roles in the learners’ preparation and presentation of the formal public
speeches in class with their distinctive benefits. Effective instructional
designs for ESP courses should consider the differential cognitive,
24 C. ZHENG ET AL.

affective and behavioral effects of sequencing different types of formative

assessment strategies on learners’ English public speaking. Follow-up
pedagogical innovation in EPS courses should try to integrate these
three forms of assessment practice in a unified and harmonious way
and maximize the potential positive effects of formative practice on
different learner variables.

6. Conclusion
6.1. Research contributions
Formative assessment has been reorganized as an effective way for
improving learning, but its specific designs in English speaking courses
with CALL tools are still under-explored. This quasi-experimental inves-
tigation explored the effects of different sequences of video-based for-
mative practice on English language learners’ public speaking anxiety
and their public speaking performance. Firstly, our findings confirmed
the impact of the varying instructional designs or procedures of formative
assessment on alleviating learners’ public speaking anxiety and improving
their language competence. The results showed that video-based
self-assessment-initiated practice can significantly help to alleviate learn-
ers’ EPS anxiety compared with peer-assessment-initiated practice. On
the other hand, peer-assessment-initiated practice has a more significant
impact on improving learners’ public speaking performance compared
with video-based self-assessment-initiated practice. In this sense, the
research furthered our understanding of formative assessment from the
perspective of instructional design. It raises our attention to the necessity
of designing more personalized and appropriate formative practice pro-
cedure for learners with diversified prior learning experience and affective
status. Secondly, the study highlighted the positive effects of video-based
formative practice on learners’ specific linguistic skills and their emotions
in EPS courses. Due to the advantages of video-based self-, peer- and
teacher assessment, the formative assessment process allowed learners to
reflect and practice their public speaking skills, which may further alle-
viate their public speaking anxiety. Video-based formative practice among
learners, their peers and teachers played a crucial role on fostering a
positive, supportive and collaborative online and offline learning ecosys-
tem for English public speaking learners to increase their positive affect
as well as improve their language proficiency.

6.2. Implications for educational practice

The two different sequences of video-based formative assessment practice

in our EPS course provided several implications for educational practice,
Computer Assisted Language Learning 25

particularly in terms of the instructional design. Drawing upon our

research findings, the different sequential design of formative assessment
may lead to the varying effects on learners’ public speaking anxiety and
performance. Therefore, we recommend that self-assessment should be
arranged first for learners with a relatively higher-level of speaking
anxiety while peer-assessment should be conducted first for learners
with a lower-level of English language proficiency in real-classroom
practice. Since formative feedback is the essential and integral part of
assessment (Mohamadi, 2018; van Ginkel et al., 2019), in-depth analyses
of types of feedbacks from the three sources (self-, peer and teacher)
should be conducted in future studies. Particularly, the feedback char-
acteristics in terms of their contents and forms should be summarized
and the interactions between these feedbacks and learners’ academic
improvement or emotional change should be demonstrated. We suggested
that the evaluation framework for analyzing learners’ public speaking
competence could include more concrete criteria at linguistical level
including fluency (words per minute), grammatical accuracy, and sen-
tence complexity, etc.

6.3. Research limitations and future studies

Although the current research adds to our current knowledge of

video-based formative assessment in EPS courses, it is still limited in
several ways. First, this study was conducted in an EPS course at a
research university among college students as the only sample and only
eight students were selected for follow-up interviews based on their
responses and constructive suggestions in self-reflection journals. Future
studies could consider including learners at other institutions, and the
selected interviewees should also represent the different levels of par-
ticipants. Since effects of sequencing formative assessment in different
tiers of education could be quite different, further research is recom-
mended to involve secondary school students as participants. The
long-term effects on learners’ continuous change in EPS anxiety and
performance should also be investigated. Moreover, previous research
about formative assessment revealed the link between personality traits
and learners’ oral communication anxiety (Dewaele & Furnham, 1999;
Liang & Kelsen, 2018). For instance, a confident and self-reflective
learner obviously may benefit more from self-assessment. A learner who
is socially oriented could be more receptive of peer assessment. Coupled
with the developmental factors, the effects of different types of formative
assessment on learners’ FLA and achievements could be quite different.
Therefore, future studies could also take learners’ personality character-
istics as an independent variable and further explore its association with
26 C. ZHENG ET AL.

EPS anxiety when different orders of assessment strategies are adopted.

Finally, our measurement of learners’ public speaking anxiety is mainly
based on self-report survey since we are concerned with the subjective
emotional state of the English language learners. In order to improve
the evaluation of learners’ emotional state in delivering public speeches,
affective computing technologies are recommended for future studies.
Current advancement of CALL technologies allows researchers to auto-
matically detect learners’ various behaviors during the process of public
speaking, such as facial expressions, hand and body gestures, vocal
characteristics, and sentiment (e.g., Lee & Kleinsmith, 2019). These
technologies may be able to diagnose the speakers’ affective states more
accurately. Future research project could also employ multi-modal anal-
ysis of learners’ body languages or signs of tension empowered by
intelligent CALL technologies to provide more in-depth analysis of
learners’ emotion.

Acknowledgements
This research is funded by the National Social Science Foundation in China (Grand
No. 19BYY221, awarded to Dr. Chunping ZHENG). We would like to acknowledge
the insightful suggestions of Prof. Chin-Chung TSAI, Prof. Jyh-Chong LIANG and
Prof. Zhihong LU on designing this quasi-experimental research based on a mix-methods
approach.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors
Chunping Zheng is currently a professor in School of Humanities at Beijing University
of Posts and Telecommunications. She also serves as the Director of the Center for
Research on Technology-Enhanced Language Education. Her research interests are
computer-assisted language learning and computer-assisted translation.
Lili Wang is an MA graduate in School of Humanities at Beijing University of Posts
and Telecommunications. Her current research interests are computer-assisted language
learning and the instructional design of English language courses.
Ching Sing Chai is currently a professor in the department of Curriculum and
Instruction at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests include
teacher education, design thinking and technological pedagogical content knowledge.
Computer Assisted Language Learning 27

References
Adachi, C., Tai, J. H. M., & Dawson, P. (2018). Academics’ perceptions of the benefits
and challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 294–306. doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1339775
Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2017). Researching feedback dialogue: An interactional anal-
ysis approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 252–265. doi:10
.1080/02602938.2015.1102863
Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1106–1119. doi:10.1080/02602
938.2018.1434128
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research.
Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405. doi:10.1177/146879410100100307
Bashori, M., van Hout, R., Strik, H., & Cucchiarini, C. (2020). Web-based language
learning and speaking anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–32. doi:10.
1080/09588221.2020.1770293
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551–575. doi:10.1080/0969594x.2018.1441807
Bodie, G. D. (2010). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts: Defining,
explaining, and treating public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 59(1),
70–105. doi:10.1080/03634520903443849
Bolívar-Cruz, A., & Verano-Tacoronte, D. (2018). Self-assessment of the oral presenta-
tion competence: Effects of gender and student’s performance. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 59, 94–101. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.04.001
Boud, D., Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Bennett, S., Joughin, G., & Molloy, E. (2018).
Reframing assessment research: Through a practice perspective. Studies in Higher
Education, 43(7), 1107–1118. doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.1202913
Bourhis, J., & Allen, M. (1998). The role of videotaped feedback in the instruction of
public speaking: A quantitative synthesis of published empirical research.
Communication Research Reports, 15(3), 256–261. doi:10.1080/08824099809362121
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brown, T., & Morrissey, L. (2004). The effectiveness of verbal self-guidance as a trans-
fer of training intervention: Its impact on presentation performance, self-efficacy and
anxiety. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(3), 255–271. doi:10
.1080/14703290410001733302
Buyukkarci, K. (2014). Formative microteaching in teaching and foreign language
anxiety. The Anthropologist, 18(2), 505–511. doi:10.1080/09720073.2014.11891568
Cardenas-Claros, M. S., & Gruba, P. A. (2014). Listeners’ interactions with help options
in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(3), 228–245. doi:10.1080/09588
221.2012.724425
Carless, D. (2013). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In D. Boud &
L. Molly (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 90–103). London:
Routledge.
Chien, S.-Y., Hwang, G.-J., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2020). Effects of peer assessment within
the context of spherical video-based virtual reality on EFL students’ English-Speaking
performance and learning perceptions. Computers & Education, 146, 103751.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103751
Chow, B. W.-Y., Chiu, H. T., & Wong, S. W. L. (2018). Anxiety in reading and listen-
ing English as a foreign language in Chinese undergraduate students. Language
Teaching Research, 22(6), 719–738. doi:10.1177/1362168817702159
28 C. ZHENG ET AL.

Coskun, A. (2017). The effect of pecha kucha presentations on students’ English pub-
lic speaking anxiety. [Los efectos de presentaciones “Pecha Kucha” sobre la ansiedad
a hablar en público de estudiantes de inglés]. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional
Development, 19, 11–22. doi:10.15446/profile.v19n_sup1.68495
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th eds.). Croydon: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advances in mixed
methods design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods
in the social and behavioural sciences (pp. 209–240).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009). The impact of an innovative instruction-
al intervention on the acquisition of oral presentation skills in higher education.
Computers & Education, 53(1), 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.005
De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self- and peer assess-
ment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments?Active Learning
in Higher Education, 13(2), 129–142. doi:10.1177/1469787412441284
Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Psychological and sociodemographic correlates of communicative
anxiety in L2 and L3 production. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(1), 23–38.
doi:10.1177/13670069020060010201
Dewaele, J.-M. (2017). Are perfectionists more anxious foreign language learners and users?
In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety:
Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 70–91). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Al-Saraj, T. M. (2013). Foreign language anxiety: Some conceptual
and methodological issues. Journal of Psychology, 68(3), 71–78.
Dewaele, J. M., & Furnham, A. (1999). Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied
linguistic research. Language Learning, 49(3), 509–544. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00098
Dupagne, M., Stacks, D., & Giroux, V. (2007). Effects of video streaming technology
on public speaking students’ communication apprehension and competence. Journal
of Educational Technology Systems, 35(4), 479–490. doi:10.2190/5947-4W72-303L-Q578
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2018). An exploration into the impact of WebQuest-based
classroom on EFL learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills: A
mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5–6), 617–651. doi
:10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757
Ebrahimi, O. V., Pallesen, S., Kenter, R. M. F., & Nordgreen, T. (2019). Psychological
interventions for the fear of public speaking: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology,
10, 488. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00488
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language
classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 206–220. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.
2005.00275.x
Elmenfi, F., & Gaibani, A. (2016). The role of social evaluation in influencing public
speaking anxiety of English language learners at Omar Al-Mukhtar University. Arab
World English Journal, 7(3), 496–505. doi:10.24093/awej/vol7no3.35
Fukkink, R. G., Trienekens, N., & Kramer, L. J. C. (2011). Video feedback in education
and training: Putting learning in the picture. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1),
45–63. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9144-5
Ge, Z. G. (2019). Exploring the effect of video feedback from unknown peers on
e-learners’ English-Chinese translation performance. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 1–21. doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1677721
González de Sande, J. C., & Godino-Llorente, J. I. (2014). Peer assessment and
self-assessment: Effective learning tools in higher education. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 30(3), 711–721.
Computer Assisted Language Learning 29

Gotwals, A. W., Philhower, J., Cisterna, D., & Bennett, S. (2015). Using video to ex-
amine formative assessment practices as measures of expertise for mathematics and
science teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2),
405–423. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9623-8
Han, C. (2018). A longitudinal quantitative investigation into the concurrent validity
of self and peer assessment applied to English-Chinese bi-directional interpretation
in an undergraduate interpreting course. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 187–
196. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.01.001
Hartmeyer, R., Stevenson, M. P., & Bentsen, P. (2016). Evaluating design-based forma-
tive assessment practices in outdoor science teaching. Educational Research, 58(4),
420–441. doi:10.1080/00131881.2016.1237857
He, D. (2013). What makes learners anxious while speaking English: A comparative
study of the perceptions held by university students and teachers in China. Educational
Studies, 39(3), 338–350. doi:10.1080/03055698.2013.764819
Hinton, J. S., & Kramer, M. W. (1998). The impact of self-directed videotape feedback
on students’ self-reported levels of communication competence and apprehension.
Communication Education, 47(2), 151–161. doi:10.1080/03634529809379119
Horwitz, E. K. (2013). Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide to second language
learning and teaching (2nd eds.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person.
Horwitz, E. K. (2017). On the misreading of Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) and
the need to balance anxiety research and the experiences of anxious language learn-
ers. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language
anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 31–47).Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x
Huang, S.-C. (2016). Understanding learners’ self-assessment and self-feedback on their
foreign language speaking performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
41(6), 803–820. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1042426
Huck, S. W., & McLean, R. A. (1975). Using a repeated measures ANOVA to analyze
the data from a pretest-posttest design: A potentially confusing task. Psychological
Bulletin, 82(4), 511–518. doi:10.1037/h0076767
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of for-
mative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. doi:10.1080/0260293
8.2018.1545896
Hung, Y.-J. (2019). Bridging assessment and achievement: Repeated practice of
self-assessment in college English classes in Taiwan. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 44(8), 1191–1208. doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1584783
Irons, A. (2007). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. London:
Routledge.
Jin, Y. X., & Dewaele, J. M. (2018). The effect of positive orientation and perceived
social support on foreign language classroom anxiety. System, 74, 149–157.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.01.002
Jing, W., & Li, W. (2009). A study of the relationship between English public speaking
curriculum and the integrated ability of foreign language talents. Foreign Languages
and Their Teaching, (9), 32–35.
Kasbi, S., & Elahi Shirvan, M. (2017). Ecological understanding of foreign language
speaking anxiety: Emerging patterns and dynamic systems. Asian-Pacific Journal of
Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(1), 1–20. doi:10.1186/s40862-017-0026-y
30 C. ZHENG ET AL.

Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second
language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning and Technology,
16(1), 91–109.
Kim, E. J., & Lee, K. R. (2019). Effects of an examiner’s positive and negative feedback
on self-assessment of skill performance, emotional response, and self-efficacy in
Korea: A quasi-experimental study. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 142. doi:10.1186/
s12909-019-1595-x
Koh, E., Hong, H., & Tan, J. P.-L. (2018). Formatively assessing teamwork in
technology-enabled twenty-first century classrooms: Exploratory findings of a team-
work awareness programme in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(1),
129–144. doi:10.1080/02188791.2018.1423952
Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive
perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348. doi:10.1016/j.learnin-
struc.2009.08.005
Kralova, Z., & Tirpakova, A. (2019). Nonnative EFL teachers’ speaking anxiety:
Post-communist country context. Sage Open, 9(2), 1–13. doi:10.1177/2158244019846698
Lam, R. (2016). Assessment as learning: Examining a cycle of teaching, learning, and
assessment of writing in the portfolio-based classroom. Studies in Higher Education,
41(11), 1900–1917. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.999317
Langan, A. M., Shuker, D. M., Cullen, W. R., Penney, D., Preziosi, R. F., & Wheater,
C. P. (2008). Relationships between student characteristics and self-, peer and tutor
evaluations of oral presentations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2),
179–190. doi:10.1080/02602930701292498
Leenknecht, M., Wijnia, L., Kohlen, M., Fryer, L., Rikers, R., & Loyens, S. (2021).
Formative assessment as practice: The role of students’ motivation. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2), 236–255. doi:10.1080/02602938.2020.1765228
Lee, G. C., & Wu, C.-C. (2006). Enhancing the teaching experience of pre-service
teachers through the use of videos in web-based computer-mediated communication.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(4), 369–380.
doi:10.1080/14703290600973836
Lee, H., & Kleinsmith, A. (2019). Public speaking anxiety in a real classroom: Towards
developing a reflection system. Chi Ea ‘19 Extended Abstracts: Extended Abstracts of
the 2019 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
doi:10.1145/3290607.3312875
LeFebvre, L., LeFebvre, L. E., & Allen, M. (2018). Training the butterflies to fly in
formation: Cataloguing student fears about public speaking. Communication Education,
67(3), 348–362. doi:10.1080/03634523.2018.1468915
Li, M., & Zhang, X. (2021). A meta-analysis of self-assessment and language perfor-
mance in language testing and assessment. Language Testing, 38(2), 189–130.
doi:10.1177/0265532220932481
Liang, H. Y., & Kelsen, B. (2018). Influence of personality and motivation on oral
presentation performance. J Psycholinguist Res, 47(4), 755–776. doi:10.1007/
s10936-017-9551-6
Liu, M. (2018). Bilingual/multilingual learners’ willingness to communicate in and
anxiety on speaking Chinese and their associations with self-rated proficiency in
Chinese. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(1), 54–69.
doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1127889
Liu, R. Q., & Dai, M. C. (2003). FLT reform in Chinese higher education: Current sit-
uation and future development strategy. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.
Computer Assisted Language Learning 31

Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness
to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1),
71–86. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00687.x
Logan, E. (2009). Self and peer assessment in action. Practitioner Research in Higher
Education, 3(1), 29–35.
Lucas, S. E. (2009). The role of public speaking in China’s English language curriculum.
In L. Wang (Eds.), English public speaking in global context: Challenges and innova-
tions (pp. 3–24). Beijing, China: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Lucas, S. E. (2010). The art of public speaking (10th ed.). Beijing: Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press.
Lucas, S. E. (2013). English public speaking and the cultivation of talents for Chinese
college students. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 163–182. doi:10.1515/
cjal-2013-0011
Lucas, S. E., & Yin, S. (2011). The art of public speaking (teacher’s book) (10th ed.).
Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Lu, Z., Zheng, C., & Li, Z. (2018). Effects of embedded summary writing on EFL
learners’ anxiety and oral production in a computer-based testing environment.
Journal of Computers in Education, 5(2), 221–241. doi:10.1007/s40692-018-0105-1
MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its
development. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubncy, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into
language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11–30). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on
cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283–305.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01103.x
Martin, S. N., & Siry, C. (2012). Using video in science teacher education: An analy-
sis of the utilization of video-based media by teacher educators and researchers. In
B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook
of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 417–433). Dortrecht: Springer.
McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs,
37(4), 269–288. doi:10.1080/03637757009375677
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Min, S., He, L., & Zhang, J. (2020). Review of recent empirical research (2011-2018)
on language assessment in China. Language Teaching, 53(3), 316–340. doi:10.1017/
S0261444820000051
Mitchell, V. W., & Bakewell, C. (1995). Learning without doing enhancing oral presen-
tation skills through peer review. Management Learning, 26(3), 353–366.
doi:10.1177/1350507695263005
Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment
on EFL student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29–40.
doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.02.003
Mörtberg, E., Jansson-Fröjmark, M., Pettersson, A., & Hennlid-Oredsson, T. (2018).
Psychometric properties of the personal report of public speaking anxiety (PRPSA)
in a sample of university students in Sweden. International Journal of Cognitive
Therapy, 11(4), 421–433. doi:10.1007/s41811-018-0022-0
Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., & Montanero, M. (2018). Oral presentations in higher edu-
cation: A comparison of the impact of peer and teacher feedback. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(1), 138–150. doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1303032
32 C. ZHENG ET AL.

Murphy, K., & Barry, S. (2016). Feed-forward: Students gaining more from assessment
via deeper engagement in video-recorded presentations. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 41(2), 213–227. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.996206
Newsom, J. T. (2021). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) (unpublished course mateirals).
Portland: Portland State University. Retrieved from http://web.pdx.edu/~newsomj/
mvclass/ho_ancova.pdf.
Nicol, D., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment practic-
es in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice. In C. Bryan & K.
Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 64–77).London: Routledge.
Özdemir-Yılmazer, M., & Özkan, Y. (2017). Classroom assessment practices of English
language instructor. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 324–345.
Park, G. P. (2014). Factor analysis of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale
in Korean learners of English as a foreign language. Psychological Reports, 115(1),
261–275. doi:10.2466/28.11.PR0.115c10z2
Pérez, M. C. I., Vidal-Puga, J., & Juste, M. R. P. (2020). The role of self and peer
assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1–10. doi:10.1080/030
75079.2020.1783526
Pribyl, C. B., Keaten, J., & Sakamoto, M. (2001). The effectiveness of a skills-based
program in reducing public speaking anxiety. Japanese Psychological Research, 43(3),
148–155. doi:10.1111/1468-5884.t01-1-00171
Quigley, B. L., & Nyquist, J. D. (1992). Using video technology to provide feedback to
students in performance courses. Communication Education, 41(3), 324–334.
doi:10.1080/03634529209378892
Rausch, J. R., Maxwell, S. E., & Kelley, K. (2003). Analytic methods for questions
pertaining to a randomized pretest, posttest, follow-up design. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology : The Official Journal for the Society of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53, 32(3),
467–486. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3203_15
Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: A model for learning through peer assess-
ment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301–315. doi:10.1080/02
602938.2015.1008982
Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching
and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47(2), 135–173.
doi:10.1017/S0261444813000505
Ritchie, S. M. (2016). Self-assessment of video-recorded presentations: Does it improve
skills? Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 207–221. doi:10.1177/1469787416654807
Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, J. W. (2007). The role of lesson analysis in
pre-service teacher education: An empirical investigation of teacher learning from a
virtual video-based field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(2),
123–140. doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9029-9
Scovel, T. (1991). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the
anxiety research. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From
theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 15–24). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Sharpe, D. (2015). Your chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(8), 1–10.
Simpson, T., Holden, K., Merrick, D., Dawson, S., & Bedford, L. (2019). Does video
feedback & peer observation offer a valid method of reinforcing oral presentation
training for undergraduate biochemists? Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1), 262–283.
doi:10.1080/23752696.2019.1587717
Computer Assisted Language Learning 33

Şimşek, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2017). Anxiety and L2 self-images: The ‘anxious self. In C.
Gkonou, M. Daubncy, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety:
Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 51–69). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., Sampson, D., et al. (2016). Technology enhanced forma-
tive assessment for 21st century learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
19(3), 58–71.
Su, Y. R. (2015). An overview of the development of research on public speaking course
from 2004 to 2013. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 415–429. doi:10.1515/
cjal-2015-0027
Tapingkae, P., Panjaburee, P., Hwang, G. J., & Srisawasdi, N. (2020). Effects of a for-
mative assessment-based contextual gaming approach on students’ digital citizenship
behaviours, learning motivations, and perceptions. Computers & Education, 159(16).
103998. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.,
Taras, M. (2008). Summative and formative assessment: Perceptions and realities. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 172–192. doi:10.1177/1469787408091655
To, J., & Panadero, E. (2019). Peer assessment effects on the self-assessment process
of first-year undergraduates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6),
920–932. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1548559
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities.
Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. doi:10.3102/00346543068003249
Tsang, A. (2020). The relationship between tertiary-level students’ self-perceived presen-
tation delivery and public speaking anxiety: A mixed-methods study. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(7), 1060–1072. doi:10.1080/02602938.2020.1718601
Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer
feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49(4),
1161–1174. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.007
van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Braeken, J. (2014). Student perceptions of
assessment and student self-efficacy in competence-based education. Educational
Studies, 40(3), 330–351. doi:10.1080/03055698.2014.898577
van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2015). Towards a set of design
principles for developing oral presentation competence: A synthesis of research in
higher education. Educational Research Review, 14, 62–80. doi:10.1016/j.
edurev.2015.02.002
van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2017a). Fostering oral presen-
tation performance: Does the quality of feedback differ when provided by the teach-
er, peers or peers guided by tutor? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
42(6), 953–966. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1212984
van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2017b). The impact of the
feedback source on developing oral presentation competence. Studies in Higher
Education, 42(9), 1671–1685. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1117064
van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., Noroozi, O., Roozen, M., Bos, T., … Mulder,
M. (2019). Fostering oral presentation competence through a virtual reality-based
task for delivering feedback. Computers & Education, 134, 78–97. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2019.02.006
Vattoy, K.-D., & Smith, K. (2019). Students’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback practice
in teaching English as a foreign language. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85,
260–268. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.024
Wang, Y.-C. (2015). Promoting collaborative writing through wikis: A new approach
for advancing innovative and active learning in an ESP context. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 28(6), 499–512. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.881386
34 C. ZHENG ET AL.

Wang, L., Liu, H., & Zheng, C. (2020). Learners’ perceptions of English public speak-
ing anxiety and competence in video-based formative assessment. In L.-H. Wong,
et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Global Chinese Conference on Computers in
Education (pp. 1358–1361). Lanzhou, China: Northwest Normal University.
Wongwatkit, C., Srisawasdi, N., Hwang, G.-J., & Panjaburee, P. (2017). Influence of an
integrated learning diagnosis and formative assessment-based personalized web learn-
ing approach on students learning performances and perceptions. Interactive Learning
Environments, 25(7), 889–903. doi:10.1080/10494820.2016.1224255
Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal,
37(3), 308–328. doi:10.1177/0033688206071315
Yan, J., & Horwitz, E. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of how anxiety interacts with
personal and instructional factors to influence their achievement in English: A
qualitative analysis of EFL learners in China. Language Learning, 58(1), 151–183.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00437.x
Yu, X. (2018). Foreign language learning anxiety in China: Theories and applications
in English language teaching. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 1–3. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-7662-6
Zahonero, M. L. (2019). Mobile formative assessment and affective factors in Italian
university students of Spanish. Rivista Di Psicolinguistica Applicata-Journal of Applied
Psycholinguistics, 19(1), 27–47.
Zhan, Y., & So, W. W. M. (2017). Views and practices from the chalkface: Development
of a formative assessment multimedia learning environment. Technology Pedagogy
and Education, 26(4), 501–515. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2017.1345783
Zhang, X., & Ardasheva, Y. (2019). Sources of college EFL learners’ self-efficacy in the
English public speaking domain. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 47–59. doi:10.1016/j.
esp.2018.09.004
Zhang, X., Ardasheva, Y., & Austin, B. W. (2020). Self-efficacy and English public
speaking performance: A mixed method approach. English for Specific Purposes, 59,
1–16. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2020.02.001
Zheng, L., Zhang, X., & Cui, P. (2020). The role of technology-facilitated peer assess-
ment and supporting strategies: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 45(3), 372–386. doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1644603
Zheng, C., & Li, C. (2015). Application of formative assessment in a Chinese EFL
course. In M. Li & Y. Zhao (Eds.), Exploring learning & teaching in higher education
(pp. 395−410). Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-55352-3_18
Zheng, C., Li, C., & Lu, Z. (2012). An empirical study of applying formative assessment
to an EFL public speaking course. Journal of Beijing University of Posts and
Telecommunications (Social Sciences Edition), 14(5), 112–118.