Asia-Pacific Edu Res (2022) 31(3):307–319
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00562-0
REGULAR ARTICLE
Promoting English Learning in Secondary Schools: Design-Based
Research to Develop a Mobile Application for Collaborative
Learning
Eunhye Grace Ko1 • Kyu Yon Lim2
Accepted: 1 March 2021 / Published online: 15 April 2021
 De La Salle University 2021
Abstract The goal of this study was to design a mobile
application to address the challenge of the lack of quality
English-speaking lessons in South Korean middle and high
schools. The study was conducted because providing
quality English speaking lessons in large size classes
arguably could foster equal access to acquiring English
speaking skills in public education settings. WikiTalki, a
mobile application developed in this study, is a classroom
assistance tool that expands students’ verbal practice
opportunities and enables them to receive personalized
peer feedback on their speaking performance. The devel-
opment process of WikiTalki followed the design-based
research (DBR) approach and was conducted in three
iterations of design, development, and test. An empirical
study was conducted to assess the application’s effective-
ness in terms of students’ participation, self-efficacy,
achievement in oral speech, and perceived English-speak-
ing success. Significant findings of the study were:
recording and sharing function increased learner partici-
pation in large-sized English classes; peer feedback tended
to promote collaborative learning; continuous refinement
of the application design enhanced the quality of instruc-
tional design and usability.
& Eunhye Grace Ko
eko@utexas.edu
Kyu Yon Lim
klim@ewha.ac.kr
1 mar in these countries, opportunities to develop speaking
College of Education, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX, USA
2 private institutions and reside in urban areas. Thus, pro-
Department of Educational Technology, Ewha Womans
University, Ewhayeodae-gil 52, Education building A405,
Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Keywords Design-based research (DBR)

Mobile assisted language learning (MALL)

Mobile computer-supported collaborative learning
(mCSCL)
Peer feedback
Introduction
In East Asian countries, learning English is considered one
of the major attributes of academic and professional suc-
cess and is given high socio-cultural value for its strong
association with economic well-being (Miangah &
Nezarat, 2012). Accordingly, there are substantial invest-
ments in language learning in public and private education.
Despite the efforts, English proficiency in East Asian
countries is not satisfying: Korea ranked 31, China 47, and
Japan 49 among 88 countries (EF English Proficiency
Index, 2018).
When it comes to speaking abilities in particular, the
problem is more critical: only 21% of Chinese believe that
their English speaking skills were beyond the initial
greeting level (Sun et al., 2017). This perception may be
due to a heavy focus on accuracy. Many non-native English
teachers in China concentrate on the accurate use of
vocabulary, grammar, and the memorization of dialogues
(Hu et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2017). Similarly, in Korean and
Japanese secondary schools, English classes are reading-
and grammar-oriented, focusing on university entrance
exams, which results in a lack of communicative skills
(Aoki, 2017). Due to this emphasis on reading and gram-
proficiency are somewhat limited to those who can afford
viding sufficient opportunities and communicative contexts
for English learners, regardless of their socioeconomic
123
308
background, can be a critical contribution to addressing
educational access and resource problems in East Asia.
Indeed, there exists a lack of classes focusing on speaking
practices in Asian K-12 schools. Even in classes empha-
sizing communicative skills, students lack opportunities for
practice due to a variety of hindrances, such as large class
sizes, inadequate class time, and limited teacher feedback
(Zhan & Sun, 2015). This lack of practice is a problem in
language learning because repeated practice and active
involvement is the key to improving communicative ability
(Brown, 2007). This problem has been prevalent in second-
language learning settings, and many researchers and
teachers have adopted technology to resolve these issues.
Integrating computer and mobile technology in language
learning have been suggested as solutions to overcoming
the difficulties of large class sizes in speaking and writing
classes. The integration of technologies facilitates the
environment where the language is taught and practiced
(Miagnah & Nexarat, 2012). In Computer-Assisted Lan-
guage Learning (CALL) approach, teachers can use com-
puters’ intelligent adaptive feature to facilitate personalized
speaking practices. With an increased access to mobile
devices, Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL)
approach has been in the spotlight for maximizing com-
munication in classrooms by connecting learners. For
instance, students can share their practice recording via
mobile devices and provide it as language input for their
peers (Pegrum, 2014).
Research on MALL has highlighted its benefits on lis-
tening (Salih, 2019), vocabulary (Hanson & Brown, 2020),
reading (Loewen et al., 2019), and writing (Aghajani &
Zoghipour, 2018) skills. There is, however, limited
research regarding the use of mobile applications to
develop speaking skills in K-12 schools. In one of the few
examples,
Sun et al. (2017) investigated how a mobile social net-
work services (SNS) application improved the English-
speaking skills of first-grade EFL classes in China. The
authors found that the use of SNS improved fluency by
enabling learners to practice speaking in low-stress, situa-
tional contexts. In another study, Shi et al. (2017) utilized a
popular Chinese mobile messaging platform called
WeChat to assist language learning in higher education
contexts. The results suggested that MALL helps generate
a language immersion environment that leads to motivation
and improvement in English proficiency.
Although these studies have contributed to the
advancement of MALL, their scope is limited as the SNS
application interventions were used for extended practice
after classes. Using applications outside of class hours may
have caused difficulties for less self-regulated learners and
limited in-classroom feedback by teachers or peers.
Another limitation was that both studies utilized
123
E. G. Ko, K. Y. Lim
commercial SNS apps which were not designed for lan-
guage learning. Therefore, to reach the full potential of
utilizing mobile applications for language learning, the
present study designed and developed a mobile application
tailored to in-class English speaking practices based on the
implications of MALL and mobile Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning. The development of the app had
three main goals: (1) facilitating collaborative learning via
guided peer feedback customized for English-speaking
practice, (2) using mobile devices to aid class management
for teachers, and (3) enhancing English-speaking practice
by providing reflection and re-recording opportunities. The
application’s effectiveness was evaluated in terms of lear-
ner participation, English-speaking self-efficacy, self-per-
ception of English speaking improvement, and English-
speaking achievement. This study sought to overcome the
barriers of conducting English-speaking lessons in large
classes with the intention of fostering equal access to the
development of English-speaking skills in public education
settings. Furthermore, the implications derived from the
application will provide new ideas and strategies for the
design, development, and implementation of mobile-as-
sisted tools in K-12 schools. Accordingly, this research
attempted to answer the following research questions to
estimate the effects of using mobile technology in English-
speaking classes with numerous students:
1. How can a mobile application for enhancing speaking
practices in large classes be designed and developed
according to the design-based research approach?
2. What are the effects of using the developed applica-
tion, WikiTalki, in high-school classrooms regarding
learner participation, English-speaking self-efficacy,
perceived English-speaking achievement, and English-
speaking achievement?
Literature Review
In order to develop speaking skills in a second language, it
is critical to have ample opportunities for feedback on
speaking practices (Brown, 2007). Despite the importance
of feedback in developing speaking skills, large class sizes
and limited class time often act as hindrances to sufficient
feedback in English speaking classrooms. To address these
problems, this study examined how mobile-assisted lan-
guage learning could facilitate peer feedback as an alter-
native and supplement to instructor feedback.
Peer assessment is a learning strategy that requires stu-
dents to evaluate their peers by providing ratings or oral
feedback (Topping, 1998). The process of delivering
feedback provides opportunities for students to acknowl-
edge the rubric (Huismanet al., 2018), read or listen to
Promoting English Learning in Secondary Schools: Design-Based Research to Develop a Mobile…
peers work carefully, make comparisons of their own work
with that of others (Chienet al., 2020), practice critical
thinking skills (Hovardas et al., 2014), and reflect on their
work (Ion et al., 2018).
Peer feedback has proven beneficial in English as sec-
ond language classes. Yastibas and Yastibas (2015) found
that observing peers’ mistakes and considering it as a
learning opportunity contributed to reduced English
learning anxiety and improved English writing skills. In
terms of English speaking skills, Chien et al. (2020) study
revealed that the use of peer assessment had positive
impacts on students’ English speaking, language learning
anxiety, motivation, and critical thinking.
Among various peer feedback methods, this study
evaluated the effects of formative peer feedback on lan-
guage development. Formative feedback in language
learning focuses on providing timely and specific feedback
that is relevant to target expressions (American Council of
Foreign Languages, n.d.). When students are assigned to
provide formative peer feedback, the students develop a
sense of the learning objectives, distinguish between actual
and desired performances, and close the gap between those
two (Kim & Ryu, 2013). In this study, the learners used the
developed app to check for key expression use or left
comments on specific grammar issues beyond providing
rubric-based scores.
In order to facilitate peer feedback in large size classes,
this study employed Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
(MALL). MALL applied to rubric-based peer feedback has
been proven to foster English speaking skills at university
level. In Wu and Miller’s (2020) study, the instructors
created rubrics with six marking criteria and the students
provided rubric-based feedback. The results showed posi-
tive effects such as real-time feedback and support for
instructors to facilitate speaking activities in large-classes;
however, the system allowing only rubric-based feedback
is a limitation. By applying formative peer feedback, this
study aims to provide more diagnostic and prescriptive
feedback that reinforces precisely what students were
expected to learn, identifies what they learned well, and
describes what needs to be learned better (Guskey, 2007).
Furthermore, peer feedback delivered through mobile
applications can encourage mobile Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning (Farahani et al., 2019). This is
because the learning tasks are interdependent among
learners, and diverse perspectives in the feedback act as
sources of learning (Van Gennip et al., 2010). Farahani
et al. (2019) found evidence of mobile peer feedback
outperforming face-to-face collaborative learning in Eng-
lish writing practices in college-level courses. Utilizing a
commercial messenger application, students provided lar-
ger numbers of revision-oriented comments leading to
revisions and engaged in feedback both synchronously and
309
asynchronously. Based on these findings, this current study
aims to design a mobile application tailored to in-class
English speaking practices for K-12 settings.
To systematically and flexibly design and develop a
solution to overcome educational obstacles teachers face in
second-language-learning classrooms, this study selected
design-based research (DBR) as the research framework
(Wang & Hannafin, 2005; Schmitzet al., 2015). Bakker and
van Eerde (2015) described DBR as a framework for
developing and testing theory simultaneously, designing an
innovative learning environment, and providing insight
into how and why something works. Wang and Hannafin
(2005) explained DBR as an interactive framework with
collaboration among designers, researchers, and partici-
pants. As such, this current research involved active
interaction between the researchers, students, teachers, UX
designers, and developers. Furthermore, although the initial
plan of the application was rough, deliberate changes were
made through the iterative cycles to refine and boost the
utility of the application (Edelson, 2002; Cobbet al., 2003;
Plomp, 2010; Van den Akker et al., 2006).
Overall, this research followed the four steps of design-
based research organized by Reeves (2006): (1) analysis of
practical problems by researchers and practitioners in col-
laboration, (2) development of solutions informed by
existing design principles and technological innovations,
(3) iterative cycles of testing and refinement of solutions in
practice, (4) reflection to produce design principles and
enhance solution implementation.
WikiTalki: An English Speaking Practice
Application
An Android-based mobile application, WikiTalki, was
proposed to solve the problem of lack of quality English-
speaking classes in the Korean public education system.
The application was designed as a classroom assistance
tool to expand students’ practice opportunities and to
provide peer feedback. The teachers created customized
tasks according to their learning objectives and assigned
four key expressions for evaluation as the standard for
feedback on the teacher’s website. The same questions
were distributed through the application, and the students
checked the use of the target expressions.
The application consists of three main functions as
shown in Fig. 1: (1) Today’s Task—task distribution and
recording of practice; (2) Give Feedback—random
assignment of peer feedback task, check the use of key
expression and leave written comments to specific spots in
the recording; (3) My Backpack—review the peer feedback
received and re-record.
123
310
Fig. 1 Screens of task distribution (left), provide feedback (middle), check feedback results and re-record (right)
To operate the application, it is necessary to process data
between the application, the teacher’s web page, and the
server. The informational architecture of the data flow is
illustrated in Fig. 2. The procedure for the design and
development is illustrated in the following sections.
Methods
Research Design
The research was designed according to the four-step
design-based research (DBR) sequence presented by
Reeves (2006). First, the problem of low participation in
English-speaking classes due to their large sizes was ana-
lyzed with two English teachers through interviews. Sec-
ond, the researchers developed prototypes to test the flow
of the designed structure, the students’ technology literacy,
and peer feedback types. Third, the results from the pro-
totype were reflected in the development of version 1.0.
Finding from version 1.0 was reflected in version 2.0. The
two versions were iteratively tested with high school stu-
dents from the same school and six English teachers from
the same district for refinement. Lastly, the researchers
123
E. G. Ko, K. Y. Lim
examined the design issues identified for future
implementation.
Research Method
The research consisted of three iterations. Each included
(1) design and development process, (2) data collection and
testing, and (3) a reflection on the findings. Overall infor-
mation on the data collection method, participants, and
finding for iterations is organized in Table 1. The detailed
information is stated in 5. Iterations and Results.
Iterations and Results
The interview with two English teachers revealed three
significant causes for low participation in English-speaking
practice: insufficient opportunities to receive feedback,
limited attention to peers’ presentations, and transient
nature of speaking practice restraining reflection opportu-
nities. To solve these issues, the researchers established
four major objectives: providing individualized practice
opportunities, enabling every student to receive instant peer
feedback, finding effective peer feedback methods, and
providing revision opportunities for reflection.
Promoting English Learning in Secondary Schools: Design-Based Research to Develop a Mobile… 311

Fig. 2 Data interaction between the teacher’s web page, the students’ application, and the server

Table 1 Research methods used for each iteration and findings

Stage Data collection method Participants

Identification & analysis of the problem 60 min interview Two English

teachers
Iteration 1: Development and testing of Prototype testing 1 37 10th-graders
prototype A prototype testing via recording function on students’ devices and e-mail 38 10th-graders
Prototype testing 2
Paper-based peer feedback to test feedback type: lexical, numeral, 3-scale,
5-scale
Iteration 2: Development and testing of Student testing 114 10th-graders
Version 1.0 EFL class using version 1.0 use 4 10th-graders
Post-survey on effectiveness and usability of the application Two English
Focus group interview teachers
Video recording of the class and the researchers’ observation Six English
teachers
Teacher testing
Post-survey to receive teacher’s feedback after application use in classes
A focus group interview
Iteration 3: Development and testing of A 4-week comparative study between experimental and control groups 109 10th-graders
Version 2.0 Pre- and post-questionnaires on students’ participation, self-efficacy in English
speaking skills
Post-questionnaires on perceived English speaking achievement
English speaking achievement exam

123
312
Fig. 3 Three types of feedback in prototype 2: three-point Likert, five-point Likert, and lexical scale
The solution was developed according to DBR princi-
ples; as a result, three different iterations were executed.
The application evolved from the prototype (Iteration 1) to
version 1.0 (Iteration 2) and version 2.0 (Iteration 3)
through iterative processes of design, development, and
test. The limitations from each version were reflected for
improvement in the next. Following DBR principles, the
applications were incorporated into classrooms for testing,
and test results contributed to the iterative refinement and
continuous evolution (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012).
Iteration 1
Development of Prototypes
Prototype 1 was the conceptual structure of the application
design, which included recording, submitting, and sharing.
The students were required to record their practices via
smartphones and submit recordings to the teacher’s e-mail.
Testing this prototype addressed students’ technology lit-
eracy, device compatibility, data usage, and server storage
issues.
Prototype 2 was paper-based to identify peer feedback
methods. Seven students made short speeches, and 37
students provided feedback on their speaking skills in
terms of task completion, fluency, and accuracy. The stu-
dents were divided into three groups according to the type
of rating: three-point Likert, five-point Likert, and lexical
scale.
Data Collection
Both prototypes were tested in a high school located in
Korea with grade 10 students. Participants were 37 students
for prototype test 1, and 38 for prototype test 2. Two
English teachers assessed the students’ task succession rate
and compared student ratings with theirs.
Findings
Prototype 1 test results showed that the teacher received 14
answers (77%) out of the 18 in total. It showed that the
123
E. G. Ko, K. Y. Lim
students had the digital literacy of recording and sharing
answers via email. The researchers also tested technolog-
ical practicality—the recordings were distinguishable
regardless of the simultaneous recording environment. The
2-min recording files were less than 2 MB, which reduced
the data burden for uploading and streaming.
For prototype 2, the students’ rating was compared to
the teacher’s evaluation and resulted in three implications.
The feedback was relatively accurate when they were given
a lexical scale compared to numeric. The three-point scale
was more effective than five-point. Lastly, the student
raters’ accuracy and response rate decreased after rating the
first three students.
By synthesizing the testing results, a four-step concep-
tual framework was designed: (1) recording and uploading,
(2) peer feedback by three random students within the
class, (3) confirmation of the feedback, and (4) reflection
on the feedback and re-recording. Figure 3 is a conceptual
framework used as the basis for the version 1.0 design.
Iteration 2
Development of Version 1.0
The prototype review findings were integrated into version
1.0 design; the students were required to provide three-unit
lexical ratings to three students within the class via random
assignment. The application’s core structure consisted of
three steps—recording, feedback by three peers, and con-
firmation of the averaged scores (Figs. 4, 5, 6).
Data Collection from Student Experiment
A field-study utilizing version 1.0 was conducted to eval-
uate the participation, effectiveness of peer feedback,
interface design, and functionality. It involved three grade
10 English classes with 114 students in a Korean high
school. The session lasted for one period. The students
collaborated in pairs to record a radio talk show: 57
answers were submitted. The students were assigned to be
a pair without consideration of their English proficiency
but in an account of access to a device. Then, they were
Promoting English Learning in Secondary Schools: Design-Based Research to Develop a Mobile… 313

Fig. 4 WikiTalki conceptual

framework for version 1.0

Fig. 5 Student using version

1.0 in class activity

Fig. 6 Screenshot of version 1.0: task assignment (left), providing feedback (middle), checking feedback (right)

123
314 E. G. Ko, K. Y. Lim

assigned three pairs’ recordings. The students worked as a Data Collection from Teacher Focus Group
team to provide ratings on accuracy (grammar use, word
choice), fluency (speed of speech, pauses), and contents To design a practical tool for teachers, it was essential to
(clear ideas, task completion). The ratings were averaged receive feedback from teachers. Version 1.0 was incorpo-
and displayed to the students instantly. A student survey on rated into 1-hour English speaking lessons in one ele-
the usability and effects on learning consisted of eight mentary, two middle, and three high school English classes
ratings and two open-ended questions. A focus group by six teachers. After the lessons, the teachers participated
interview was conducted with four volunteers who varied in a teacher survey and focus group interview.
in linguistic abilities: one high, two intermediate, and one
low. Also, the experiment was video recorded and observed Findings from Teacher Focus Group
for further reflection.
In the survey, the teachers evaluated the app’s educational
Findings from Student Experiment effects and usability. For the survey item of how much
effect WikiTalki had on achieving the lesson’s learning
Through the testing of version 1.0, the researchers found objectives, the score was 4.83 (SD = 1.86, Median = 5).
four implications. For how much effect the app had on students’ mutual
learning, the score was 4.33 (SD = 1.70, Median = 4).
(a) In the survey, 60% of students answered they
Regarding the benefits of using WikiTalki in speaking
participated in speaking practices more actively. The
classes, five answered that WikiTalki helped promote
students were observed to record their practices
participation. Three responded that the teachers were able
repetitively and requested more time to re-record for
to monitor students’ practice with ease. Concerning
improvement. When asked what triggered motivation
defects, all six of the teachers answered that the technical
to record multiple times, the focus group answered,
errors hindered usability.
‘‘We do not know who will listen to our recordings, so
In the focus group interview, the teachers discussed that
we want to do it well.’’
the peer feedback system could be enhanced if the peer
(b) In the survey, 53% answered that they found record-
feedback methods were varied. They suggested leaving
ing their practice effective. The focus group interview
written comments at a specific time of the recording, using
showed reduced affective filter in speaking practices:
emoticons, and recording voice feedback. Re-recording
S1: I am afraid of standing in front of a lot of people
opportunities after feedback was also recommended. Some
to speak in English, but when I record, I can do it.
teachers wanted to share the role of creating tasks with the
S2: At first, I thought it was embarrassing to record,
students for self-directed learning. Lastly, reward systems
but I now believe that it is beneficial for my learning.
and social media functions were suggested.
(c) In the survey, 44% found peer feedback to be
effective, 40% found listening to their peer’s
Iteration 3
responses interesting, and 37% found the process of
providing feedback contributed to learning. In the
Development of Version 2.0
focus group, the students mentioned that convention-
ally it was not easy to remember other students’
The results from iteration 2 indicated the need to improve
practice as speaking practices were transient.
feedback, enhance usability, and reduce errors. The design
Whereas, with WikiTalki, they did not have a
of version 2.0 is described in Sect. 3. Wikitalki: an English
memory problem, listened more carefully, and
speaking practice application. Refining the peer feedback
learned what they lacked from others’ practices.
type to formative and providing re-recording opportunities
However, 18% felt that the student feedback’s low
were major improvements in version 2.0.
credibility was a problem. In the focus group
interview, some students seemed confused about their
Data Collection
feedback ratings and were unable to interpret the
meaning of the rubric-based scores.
To measure the effectiveness of version 2.0, a quasi-ex-
(d) In the survey, 53% of the students reported technical
perimental study was conducted for four weeks at a high
errors and usability of the app as defects.
school in Korea with 109 10th graders. As the experiment
aimed to provide extended opportunities for receiving peer
feedback in limited time and large classes via technology,
50 min of class time was applied as a control variable
instead of the number of peer feedback exchanged. The

123
Promoting English Learning in Secondary Schools: Design-Based Research to Develop a Mobile…
Table 2 Measurement instruments
Variable Number Sources
of
questions
Participation 15 Learner participation scale in
instruction (Cha et al., 2010)
English speaking 5 Self-efficacy measuring tool for
self-efficacy language learning – speaking
section (NCLRC, 1994)
Perceived English 3 English learning performance scale
-speaking (Song et al., 2009)
achievement
English-speaking – English speaking evaluation scale
achievement (KICE, 2012)
Total 23
study attempted to grasp holistic understanding of how the
app affected students’ classroom behaviors, emotions, and
language competency: behaviors through participation,
emotional changes through self-efficacy, and language
competency through perceived English-speaking achieve-
ment and English-speaking achievement. The scales used
to measure participation, self-efficacy in English speaking
skills, perceived English speaking achievement, and Eng-
lish-speaking achievement are listed in Table 2. Although
the self-efficacy scale included global issues that might be
challenging to be improved in short periods of time, it was
included for its strong predictability of successful language
performance (Raoofi et al., 2012). Two English teachers
measured English speaking achievement with English
speaking evaluation scale for high school developed by the
Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2012),
which included three criteria: pronunciation, language use,
and task completion. The inter-rater reliability (Pearson’s r)
between the teachers was 0.90 for the total score, 0.79 for
pronunciation, 0.79 for language use, and 0.88 for task
completion. An additional survey was given to the exper-
imental group; it comprised questions on satisfaction,
cognitive improvement on vocabulary use, grammar, and
sentence building, and application use.
The students were new to WikiTalki, and the experiment
and control groups were randomly assigned. The students
used their own devices, and all the tasks were given as pair
work. The students were assigned to be a pair without
consideration of English proficiency. The peer feedback
process facilitated collaborative learning as its task inter-
dependence connected learners, and multiple perspectives
encouraged individual learners to be responsible for active
contribution to peer learning (Van Gennip et al., 2010). An
orientation anticipated speaking test next month and
315
Cronbach’s Sample question
alpha
0.95 I actively prepared and participated in an English-
speaking practice task
0.92 I am capable of communicating the main ideas in English
0.79 Through English speaking lessons conducted in the past
four weeks (using WikiTalki), my English-speaking
skills have improved
– Pronunciation: 5 out of 5—Capable of communicating
with accurate pronunciation, stress, and intonation
2 out of 5—Due to frequent errors in pronunciation, stress,
and intonation, communication is limited
provided a guide to utilizing the application. Four experi-
mental sessions were executed, and for each session, the
students were assigned different speaking tasks.
The experimental group participants used WikiTalki for
the speaking practice and gave feedback through the
application. Reflecting on peer feedback, students were
given a chance to re-record their final practice. The par-
ticipants interacted with their peers directly by giving and
receiving real-time feedback through the application.
The control group students practiced the speaking tasks
through a similar process based on teachers’ instructions,
stopwatch, and prompts written on printed worksheets. The
students practiced in pairs, volunteered to present their
practice, listened to presentations, received teacher and
peer feedback as a whole class, and practiced the task
again. However, when the students were asked to volunteer
to present, not all groups volunteered, and there were time
limitations. As a result, only 5 to 7 out of 14 to 16 groups
presented in each class.
Findings
The results are summarized below:
(a) The control and experimental groups’ participation
were measured at the end of the experiment and
compared using an independent samples t-test (see
Table 3). The mean and standard deviation values for
the control group were 2.96 and 0.85, and the
experimental group was 3.80 and 0.65. The indepen-
dent t-test result indicated a significant difference
between the two groups with t = 5.81 (p \ 0.001).
(b) Self-efficacy was measured by pre- and post-tests.
The homogeneity assumption was met and ANCOVA
123
316
Table 3 Descriptive data and t test results for participation and perceived English-speaking achievement
Participation Control group
Experimental group
Perceived English-speaking achievement Control group
Experimental group
**
p \ 0.01
***
p \ 0.001
was conducted. The ANCOVA for groups on post-
self-efficacy controlling for pre-self-efficacy was
found to have no statistically significant effects,
F = 0.22, p [ 0.05. Estimated marginal means and
standard error of the post-self-efficacy of the control
group were 3.87 and 0.08, and of the experimental
group were 3.86 and 0.08.
(c) The researchers measured the students’ perceived
English-speaking achievement at the end of the
experiment. The mean and standard deviation for
the control group were 3.26 and 0.83, and the
experimental group was 3.68 and 0.76. The indepen-
dent t-test result showed a significant difference
between the two groups with t = 2.74 (p \ 0.01).
(d) In an effort to respect class time use and minimize
student stress, the researchers did not conduct a
controlled impromptu English-speaking assessment
for the purpose of this study. Instead, the speaking
exam was conducted one week after the experiment
as part of classroom assessment. Because English-
speaking proficiency varies among students and is
often related to socio-economic factors, such as
access to private lessons, Korean English teachers
typically provide a speaking exam topic one week in
advance for fair preparation and practice opportuni-
ties (Lee, 2018). The mean and standard deviation
were 13.5 and 1.32 for the control group and 13.75
and 1.10 for the experimental group. The independent
t-test result showed no significant difference between
the two groups (t = 1.08, p [ 0.05).
(e) On the additional survey, the students rated WikiTalki
was most effective in the use of new vocabularies and
expressions (M = 4.09, SD = 0.695), followed by
pronunciation (M = 4.00, SD = 0.786) and grammar
(M = 3.61, SD = 0.888). Furthermore, it was per-
ceived that speaking skills developed the most when
they re-recorded their practices after providing and
receiving feedback (M = 3.96, SD = 0.738). The
students found the active role of recording
(M = 3.93, SD = 0.684) and giving feedback
(M = 3.79, SD = 0.825) to be more effective than
123
E. G. Ko, K. Y. Lim
n M SD Min Max t
51 2.96 0.85 1.0 4.53 5.81***
56 3.80 0.65 2.6 5.00
51 3.26 0.83 2.0 5.00 2.74**
56 3.68 0.76 2.0 5.00
listening to others’ recordings (M = 3.75, SD =
0.815) and interpreting the peer feedback received
(M = 3.71, SD = 0.780).
Discussion
WikiTalki supported increased participation through
requiring students to upload their recording in order to
receive peer feedback. This finding corroborated Harmer’s
(2010) contention that it is important to create environ-
ments that mandate participation in speaking activities,
since language learning is a type of habit formation that
requires repetitive participation. Furthermore, as the stu-
dents did not wait for their turn to present but proceeded
with their next tasks at their personal pace, the learner
engagement and class time productivity had the potential to
increase (Schmitz et al., 2015).
Self-efficacy is a crucial factor in language learning, and
in this research, the application did not show enhanced
English-speaking self-efficacy. As self-efficacy questions
asked for global issues of efficacy such as ability to solve
communication failure problems, it might have been dif-
ficult to detect differences within a short period without
exposure to authentic context of communication.
The students in the experimental group showed an
increase in perceived English-speaking achievement
regarding the four-week experience of using WikiTalki. As
shown in the additional survey, they perceived improve-
ment when they took an active role in recording their
speaking practices, providing peer feedback, and re-
recording after receiving feedback. Kulkarni et al. (2015)
study also showed a positive effect from immediate and
focused peer feedback and following revision opportunities
in essay writing assignments on OpenEdX platform. In
developing a mastery of a skill such as speaking or writing,
repetitive revision based on immediate, focused feedback is
central to fostering deliberate practice (Ericsson et al.,
1993). Furthermore, an interesting observation was that
many students listened to their speaking practices before
uploading and many voluntarily re-recorded when they
Promoting English Learning in Secondary Schools: Design-Based Research to Develop a Mobile…
found mistakes in their first trial. The technology’s ability
of keeping a record of students’ progress might have been a
factor for repetitive practice leading to enhanced perceived
English-speaking achievement (Walker & White, 2013).
While there is a significant difference in the perceived
English-speaking achievement test, the oral exam result
showed no significance. As the students were given a week
of preparation for a fair practice opportunity, the students
could have written scripts and practiced it up to a level of
memorization during the preparation week (Kim & Yi,
2013). Thus, the test might not have reflected the students’
authentic speaking ability and the difference between the
two groups could have been neutralized. English speaking
tests based on memorized script has been a prevalent
problem of Korean English education (Koh, 2015; Lee,
2018). However, Korean English teachers tend to provide
preparation period because English-speaking proficiency is
often related to socio-economic factors, such as access to
private lessons (Lee, 2018), and many English teachers find
it difficult to reach reliability due to transient and complex
nature of speaking practices (Brown, 2007; Park & Chang,
2017).
In sum, the use of the app influenced students’ class-
room behavior of participation which showed some impact
on their perceived English-speaking achievement. Never-
theless, the recording-based speaking practice on the app
did not lead to emotional changes as the self-efficacy
measure did not show significance. This can be interpreted
as emotional changes in language learning may require
long-term practice and authentic communication context.
Finally, to understand the app’s impact on students’ lan-
guage competency, a more robust experiment plan is sug-
gested for future studies.
Conclusion
The study results present how the barriers of conducting
English speaking lessons in large classes in East Asian
schools can be supported by applying technology and peer
feedback methodology. The iterative studies on the appli-
cation’s design, development, and test described how
structuring an application with recording and sharing
function can contribute to the field of mobile-assisted
language learning (MALL).
By designing a mobile application tailored for English
speaking practices in classrooms, this study substantiated
how the use of mobile application increased students’
participation with mandatory and repetitive practice
opportunities. Furthermore, the students perceived an
increase in participation and English-speaking achievement
as they took an active role in recording their speaking
317
practices, providing peer feedback, and re-recording after
receiving feedback.
In the application design process, the most significant
shift was changing the peer feedback method from rubric-
based summative to formative. This shift expanded
reflection opportunities for students to analyze and evaluate
the success of their speaking practices (Walker & White,
2013). The peer feedback process facilitated mobile
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning as the moti-
vation to record their best practice depended on the con-
nected peers. Also, the process of providing and receiving
feedback encouraged learners to perceive the target
expressions, distinguish actual and desired performances,
and re-record for improved output. Lastly, the revision
practice based on rapid formative peer feedback was cen-
tral to deliberate practice and skill development (Guskey,
2007).
Plomp (2010) suggested that iterative studies in design-
based research (DBR) cannot be conducted in identical
methods as the findings from each cycle are incorporated
into the next study. In this research, different versions of
applications were incorporated in each iteration; the
research design for each iteration was adapted to the
specific version. The research showed how natural it is to
use multiple methodologies, tools, and techniques to assess
interventions and continuously evolve the interventions
through iterative refinement (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012).
Furthermore, consulting with students and teachers
ensured the feasibility of the research design by balancing
theory and practicality (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). The
teachers’ view enlightened the researchers in elaborating
function by reflecting on the class needs. The students
provided insights into both the app’s usability and learning.
This study’s implications should be transferred with
caution because the study was designed for Korean
schools, and the results were also influenced by Korean
learning contexts (Bakker & van Eerde, 2015; Schmitz
et al., 2015). The study showed limitations in the lack of
analysis of the students’ recording and the peer feedback
contents. Due to lack of access to devices, all assignments
were assigned in pairs; in 1-on-1 device environments, the
results may vary. The experiment was relatively short for
gauging changes in self-efficacy and language achieve-
ment. Also, the English-speaking achievement test inclu-
ded preparation period which could have affected the
validity and reliability of the exam. Accordingly, following
research topics are suggested: analyzing students’ speaking
outcomes, peer feedback contents, long-term results, con-
ducting impromptu speaking exams, and 1-on-1 device
environment.
Acknowledgements The research was made possible by the devel-
oper, designer, and educator volunteers who worked on WikiTalki
123
318
with an altruistic purpose of enhancing Korean public education. With
all their efforts, WikiTalki received an award from the Korean Min-
ister of Science, ICT, and Future Planning for educational innovation.
We also want to acknowledge the Samsung Tomorrow Solutions
Competition for the generous grant to provide WikiTalki to Korean
teachers service free of charge.
References
Aghajani, M., & Zoghipour, M. (2018). The comparative effect of
online self-correction, peer-correction, and teacher correction in
descriptive writing tasks on intermediate EFL learners’ grammar
knowledge: The prospect of Mobile Assisted Language Learning
(MALL). International Journal of Applied Linguistics and
English Literature, 7(3), 14–22.
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research a decade
of progress in education research? Educational Researcher,
41(1), 16–25.
Aoki, M. (2017, April 6). Japan’s latest English-proficiency scores
disappoint. The Japan Times Online.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/06/national/japans-
latest-english-proficiency-scores-disappoint/.
Bakker, A., & Van Eerde, D. (2015). An introduction to design-based
research with an example from statistics education. In A. Bikner-
Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to
qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 429–466).
Springer.
Brown, D. (2007). Teaching by principles. Pearson.
Cha, M., Kim, C., Kwon, H., Cho, H., Lee, J., Jeong, S., Park, E.,
Moon, Y., Wang, M., Seo, J., Jee, J., Zhang, W., Park, M., Lee,
Y., Kim, K., Lee, R., Park, H., Yu, S., Kim, J., & Park, I. (2010).
Development of learner participation scale in instruction. The
Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, 22(1),
195–219.
Chien, S., Hwang, G., & Jong, M. (2020). Effects of peer assessment
within context of spherical video-based virtual reality on EFL
students’ English-Speaking performance and learning percep-
tions. Computers & Education, 146, 103751.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003).
Design experiments in educational research. Educational
Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
American Council of Foreign Languages (n.d.). Critical Role of
Feedback.
https://www.actfl.org/resources/guiding-principles-language-
learning/critical-role-feedback.
Edelson, D. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage
in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.
English Proficiency Index. (2018). EF English proficiency index. EF
Education First.
Ericsson, K., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of
deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.
Psychological Review 100(3).
Farahani, A., Nemati, M., & Montazer, M. (2019). Assessing peer
review pattern and the effect of face-to-face and mobile-
mediated modes on students’ academic writing development.
Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 18.
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: revisiting Benjamin
S. Bloom’s ‘‘Learning for Mastery’’. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 19(1), 8–31.
Hanson, A., & Brown, C. (2020). Enhancing L2 learning through a
mobile-assisted spaced-repetition tool: An effective but bitter
pill?. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(1), 133–155.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1552975
123
E. G. Ko, K. Y. Lim
Harmer, J. (2010). The practice of English language teaching.
Longman.
Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O., & Zacharia, Z. (2014). Peer versus
expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback
among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71,
133–152.
Hu, G., Li, L., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction at a
Chinese University: Rhetoric and reality. Language Policy, 13,
21–40.
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer
feedback on academic writing: Undergraduate students’ peer
feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955–968.
Ion, G., Sanchez-Marti, A., & Agud, I. (2018). Giving or receiving
feedback: Which is more beneficial to students’ learning?
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 1–15.
Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a
web-based formative peer-assessment system for enhancing
students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-
structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
opment, 61(4), 549–561.
Kim, S. Y., & Yi, H. K. (2013). A case study on English speaking and
writing formative exams in Korean middle schools. Studies in
English Education, 18(2), 159–183.
Koh, H. W. (2015). A structural model of factors affecting English
speaking performance assessments practice. Journal of the
Korea English Education Society, 14(3), 49–70.
Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE). (2012). Eng-
lish-speaking and writing evaluation manual for preparation of
national English ability examination. Korea: Korea Institute for
Curriculum and Evaluation.
Kulkarni, C., Bernstein, M., & Klemmer, S. (2015). PeerStudio: rapid
peer feedback emphasizes revision and improves performance.
In Proceedings of the second (2015) ACM conference on
learning@ scale (pp. 75–84).
Lee, M. (2018). A study of high school English teachers’ teaching
English speaking and performance assessment. Journal of the
Korea English Education Society, 17(1), 107–126.
Loewen, S., Crowther, D., Isbell, D., Kim, K., Maloney, J., Miller, Z.,
& Rawal, H. (2019). Mobile-assisted language learning: A
Duolingo case study. ReCALL, 31(3), 293–311.
Miangah, M., & Nezarat, A. (2012). Mobile-assisted language
learning. International Journal of Distributed & Parallel
Systems, 3(1), 309–319.
National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC). (1994).
Assessment tools, 2. Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Second-
ary/Higher Education. [Self-efficacy measurement questionnaire
developed by Georgetown University]. Unpublished instrument.
http://nclrc.org/teaching_materials/assessment/
nclrc_assessment_tools.html.
Park, T., & Chang, J. (2017). A study on high school teachers’
opinions about issues of communicative English teaching and
assessment. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguis-
tics, 17(4), 839–863.
Pegrum, M. (2014). Mobile learning: Languages, literacies, and
cultures. Palgrave Macmillan.
Plomp, T. (2010). Educational design research: An introduction. In
Plomp, T. & Nieveen, N. (Eds.), An Introduction to Educational
Design Research (pp. 9–36). Netherlands Institute for Curricu-
lum Development.
Raoofi, S., Tan, B. H., & Chan, S. H. (2012). Self-efficacy in
second/foreign language learning contexts. English Language
Teaching, 5(11), 60–73.
Reeves, T. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In
Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney S., & Nieveen
N. (Eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 52–66). Routledge.
Promoting English Learning in Secondary Schools: Design-Based Research to Develop a Mobile…
Salih, A. (2019). Effects of mobile-assisted-language-learning on
developing listening skill to the department of english students in
college of education for women at Al Iraqia University.
European Journal of Language and Literature, 5(1), 31–38.
Schmitz, B., Klemke, R., Walhout, J., & Specht, M. (2015). Attuning
a mobile simulation game for school children using a design-
based research approach. Computers & Education, 81, 35–48.
Shi, Z., Luo, G., & He, L. (2017). Mobile-assisted language learning
using WeChat instant messaging. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 12(2), 16–26.
Song, Y., Kim, S., & Jung, H. (2009). The effect of m-learning
environment on perceived usefulness, satisfaction, and perfor-
mance in English learning. The Korean Journal of Business
Education Review, 57, 275–302.
Sun, Z., Lin, C., You, J., Shen, H., Song, Q., & Luo, L. (2017).
Improving the English-speaking skills of young learners through
mobile social networking. Computer Assisted Language Learn-
ing, 30(3–4), 304–324.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and
universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
Van den Akker, J., McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & Gravemeijer, K.
(2006). In Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney S., &
Nieveen N. (Eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 3–7).
Routledge
319
Van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. (2010). Peer assessment as
a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal
variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4),
280–290.
Walker, A., & White, G. (2013). Technology-enhanced language
learning: Connecting theory and practice. Oxford University
Press.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and
technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.
Wu, J. G., & Miller, L. (2020). Improving English learners’ speaking
through mobile-assisted peer feedback. RELC Journal, 51(1),
168–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219895335.
Yastibas, G., & Yastibas, A. (2015). The effect of peer feedback on
writing anxiety in Turkish EFL (English as a foreign language)
students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199,
530–538.
Zhan, S., & Sun, Y. (2015). Literature review of the studies of spoken
English in the past five years in China. Journal of Chongqing
Jiaotong University, 15(1), 123–126.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123