Online Communication Tools in Teaching Foreign Languages for Education Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Methodology must be improved. Please, include how the validity and reliability of questionnaires have been checked (what tools were implemented and what steps followed). 

Spell check: Line 242 (page 5)

Please delete Point 6. Patents and the rest of items that are not applicable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for this valuable comment. In the article, we have expanded the methodology clause indicating the steps for verifying the validity and reliability of the questionnaires. Also, your comment led to changes in "Conclusion". 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is within the scope of the journal.

It is well organized and easy to read. However, it cannot be accepted in the current state. The main problem with the article is that the experiment carried out is insufficient to establish the conclusions and statements that are described. In this sense, the analysis that arises is reduced to frequencies.

The authors are suggested to design an experiment with control and experimental groups, and carry out a more complex analysis that allows obtaining more relevant conclusions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for this valuable comment. In the article, we have expanded the methodology clause indicating the steps for verifying the validity and reliability of the questionnaires. Also, your comment led to changes in "Conclusion".

However, this study has several limitations. Moreover, we showed the existing state of the attitude of students and teachers to some issues of online education, corresponding to the time of the experiment.

Of course, the dynamics of changes are of great interest to us and will be further research. Thank you for your comment; we agree with you that further research on online education is relevant and necessary. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author,

Please find bellow some suggestions to improve the paper:

• the abstract should be rewritten to sound more coherent
• the introduction also. It has many repetitions: e.g. Education is a socio-cultural interaction between the 41 teacher and the student. Education is a joint information and communication activity, 42 which is transferred to the electronic environment thanks to information and digital 43 technologies. Education as a social 
• The introduction also defines notions well known to the audience, which seems redundant or addressed to students, such as The main 99 ways of communication are email, forum, chat, social network, blog. Electronic mail is a 100 technology and its services for sending and receiving electronic messages over a com- 101puter network
• The method of measurement is not clear, how you have reached the conclusions starting from the questionnaire is not clear. how have you measured the answers to take you to that particular result and conclusion?
• you could include the questionnaire for a better understanding
• In the results, there is too much information on theoretical aspects which deviate the attention from the actual results.
• A spell check is necessary, e.g. 3. Results 241 This The abrup

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for this valuable comment. In the article, we have expanded the methodology clause indicating the steps for verifying the validity and reliability of the questionnaires. Also, your comment led to changes in "Conclusion".

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The objective of this article is an empirical study of the satisfaction of teachers and students with the use of information and communication technologies. It is said that total, 928 1st year students who study foreign languages were interviewed using a Google Forms questionnaire. It is unclear how such a large number of respondents were interviewed through Google forms..... Also, the data collected through interviewing need a content analysis based on a concrete methodilogical procedure. However, in the metodology section there is not clear at all how the collected data were analysed, the methods used, the themes etc. developed as a result of the analysis. Nothing is said about the conytent validity of the research instrument. Moreover, it seems that the results, the interpretation and the discussion do not match.   

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for this valuable comment. In the article, we have expanded the methodology clause indicating the steps for verifying the validity and reliability of the questionnaires. Also, your comment led to changes in "Conclusion".

Teaching foreign languages ​​in the first year of study is a common component of the educational process at Russian universities.

In total, 928 1st year students study foreign languages were interviewed using a Google Forms questionnaire. At the same time, the students study in non-linguistic higher education programs:

- from Volgograd State University – 250 students,

- from the Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod – 450 students,

- from Tomsk Polytechnic University – 150 students,

- from Ural Federal University – 78 students.

Seventy-six foreign language teachers took part in the study. They were interviewed using a Google Forms questionnaire:

- 15 teachers are from Volgograd State University;

- 35 teachers are from the Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod;

- 16 teachers are from Tomsk Polytechnic University;

- ten teachers are from Ural Federal University.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is now appropriate for the journal profile

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Congrats for your paper!

Reviewer 4 Report

The revisions carried out add much to the improvement of the paper, although the supporting literature is a bit limited.