L2 Motivational Self System, International Posture and the Sustainable Development of L2 Proficiency in the COVID-19 Era: A Case of English Majors in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Methodology:
In the methodology section, sampling method should also be explained.
Validity and reliability of the data collection instruments should be explained together with the instrument. in the methodology section, not in the results section.
Were the participants willing to take part in the study? Or since they were in the classroom, were they forced to complete the questionnaires? What about the informed consent form? How long did it take to collect the data? Please provide more details about these vital issues.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the constructive comments and insightful suggestions. We have addressed all the points you have raised, as reported below.
Point 1: In the methodology section, sampling method should also be explained.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We employed a convenience sampling method, which is now explained in Section 3.1.
Point 2: Validity and reliability of the data collection instruments should be explained together with the instrument. in the methodology section, not in the results section.
Response 2: Thank you. Per your request, we have moved the corresponding part (Table and text) from the results section to the methods section.
Point 3: Were the participants willing to take part in the study? Or since they were in the classroom, were they forced to complete the questionnaires? What about the informed consent form? How long did it take to collect the data? Please provide more details about these vital issues.
Response 3: Thank you for your questions. The participants were willing to take part in our study. Although we distributed the questionnaires with the coordination of their lecturers, we made it clear to the students that they were free to decide whether to participate in and that they had the right to quit the study at any time. In other words, they were not forced to complete the questionnaires. Besides, we obtained their written consent forms along with the questionnaire items. For one participant, it took approximately 20 minutes to complete the items. Since all participants were not surveyed simultaneously, we finished our data collection within one month.
For your convenience, we used the track mode and all the revised parts are marked. Thanks again and we look forward to your further comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The study looks at an important issue in English language teaching and learning. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication either in this journal or elsewhere.
Firstly, the introduction does not highlight the rationale of the study. The main concept such as international posture is not clearly defined yet.
The literature review did quite a good job. However, the relationship between L2MSS, international posture and L2 proficiency needs to be elaborated on in more detail. Is there any difference between such a relationship in the COVID context and the normal context? I believe that there are several studies looking at related constructs in the past two years (in the COVID pandemic context).
The methodology is the weakest section of the paper. Major revisions are needed.
More information about the instruments is needed. The authors stated that the questionnaire was adopted from 4 studies. Who developed the questionnaire originally? Did all four studies use the same questionnaire? Did you make any modifications to suit your context? Why or why not?
The participants were not clearly described. As a reader, I would want to know more about the background of the participants, their English proficiency, their exposure to English (and any other languages?), etc. Much more is needed to inform the readers about your learners.
Data collection process is not clear.
Data analysis needs to be rewritten. Information about why such tests were used, the principles for using such tests, the consumptions for the parametric tests, etc.
I am sorry but I will not continue to comment on the findings and discussion section. In the round of review (if any), if the authors could address the problems mentioned above, I will continue giving my thoughts on the remaining sections of the paper.
I hope you will find my comments useful.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the constructive comments and insightful suggestions. We have addressed all the points you have raised, as reported below.
Point 1: Firstly, the introduction does not highlight the rationale of the study. The main concept such as international posture is not clearly defined yet.
Response 1: Thank you. Per your request, we have re-organized and thoroughly revised the introduction section. The first three paragraphs in this section were kept as an introduction (the “real” introduction), and the remaining paragraphs are the literature review section. We believe this revised version can better highlight the rationale of the study. Besides, we have cited more classical literature to define the main concepts more clearly.
Point 2: The literature review did quite a good job. However, the relationship between L2MSS, international posture and L2 proficiency needs to be elaborated on in more detail. Is there any difference between such a relationship in the COVID context and the normal context? I believe that there are several studies looking at related constructs in the past two years (in the COVID pandemic context).
Response 2: Thank you. In fact, we have not found much literature on the relationship between L2MSS, international posture and L2 proficiency, which really surprised us. That is also part of the reasons to conduct this study. Due to the lack of directly-related literature, we cannot elaborate the relationships between L2MSS, international posture and L2 proficiency in detail. What we can do is to give our hypotheses based on the previous findings in the literature review section, and to discuss their relationships in more detail in the discussion section. As to the differences between the COVID context and the normal context, we think it is worth investigating and have discussed it in detail in the discussion section. However, our empirical data are not longitudinal, which means we cannot take out a direct comparison between the relationships between L2MSS, international posture and L2 proficiency in the pre-COVID era and those in the COVID era. Although we wish to find out what researchers have already done on this issue, we actually did not find much information, due to the lack of relevant literature. In spite of this, we believe that the COVID-19 context is without a doubt different from the normal context. The COVID pandemic has deeply influenced us in almost all ways, and our L2 motivation (and English learning) is not an exception. For example, learners in the COVID context may get more involved in global communities with English as the mainstream medium and are more closely connected with the people and businesses worldwide, which may enhance their international posture, ideal L2 self and L2 experience.
Point 3: The methodology is the weakest section of the paper. Major revisions are needed.
Response 3: Thank you for point it out. We have realized the weakness of our methods section. Per your request, we have re-written this part. More details about our research methods, such as the sampling method, the education background of participants, the duration of data collection, have been reported.
Point 4: More information about the instruments is needed. The authors stated that the questionnaire was adopted from 4 studies. Who developed the questionnaire originally? Did all four studies use the same questionnaire? Did you make any modifications to suit your context? Why or why not?
Response 4: Thank you. Our items on ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self were originated from Kim & Kim (2014), which explored the structural relationships among L2 proficiency and the constructs of L2 learners’ resilience, motivation, and demotivation. Our items on L2 experience were based on Dörnyei & Ushioda (2013) and Ryan & Deci (2009), whose questionnaires were originated from Dörnyei et al. (2006). Our items on international posture were based on Yashima (2002) and Yashima et al. (2004), the former originally proposed four indicator variables to define the latent variable of international posture, and the latter further refined the items. Since different studies have different research goals and questionnaires, the studies listed here did not use the same questionnaire. Since the items were originated from prestigious studies, and the EFL contexts of these studies are similar to ours, we did not modify the items.
Point 5: The participants were not clearly described. As a reader, I would want to know more about the background of the participants, their English proficiency, their exposure to English (and any other languages?), etc. Much more is needed to inform the readers about your learners.
Response 5: Thank you. Per your request, we have added more information about the participants. Our participants were all English major undergraduates. As English majors, English is their primary academic language used for course lecturing, in-class activities, assignments, group projects, course papers and so on. As to their language learning background, all of them reported having studied English as a school subject since junior high school. Some of them reported that they had taken English lessons as early as in their primary schools. All of them reported having passed the College English Test Band 4 (M=567.64, SD=42.514), which is a large-scale and high-stakes national English examination measuring college students’ listening, reading, writing and translating skills held by Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, China. Among the participants, 31 (20%) were male and 121 (80%) were female. The gender ratio reflects the status quo that a vast majority of English majors in China are girls. The participants were aged from 16 to 23, with an average of 20.11 years (SD=1.44). All of them voluntarily participated in this study.
Point 6: Data collection process is not clear.
Response 6: Thank you. Per your request, we have added more information about our data collection processes. The data were collected on April 2021 and we finished the data collection within one month. We first contacted some lecturers in the faculty of English of the sample university, explained our purpose of study, and invited them for their assistance. With the coordination of these lecturers, we went to the class, explained the purpose of the study to the students, and invited them to participate in our study. Upon the consent of the students, we distributed the questionnaires to them. We informed the participants that there is no right or wrong to answer the questions, and they were encouraged to select the option that they felt most suitable. We also informed them that to protect their privacy, no identifiable personal information would be revealed in any case, and that they had the right to quit the study at any time. The completion of all items took approximately 20 minutes. When they finished the questionnaires, we thanked them in person and gave them some snacks for appreciation. A total of 156 questionnaires were distributed and 152 responses were re-turned (valid rate = 97%).
Point 7: Data analysis needs to be rewritten. Information about why such tests were used, the principles for using such tests, the consumptions for the parametric tests, etc.
Response 7: Thank you. Per your request, we have re-written the data analysis part. To examine relationships between variables, a two-step structural equation modelling (SEM) approach was used. The first step was to build a measurement model and the second step is to build a structural model. According to Taguchi et al. (2009), the measurement model is to specify the relationships between the latent variables, and the structural model is to define relations among the unobserved latent variables and to specify the manner by which particular latent variables directly or indirectly influence changes in other latent variables in the model. In our process of data analysis, the confirmatory factor analysis was conducted first to identify the reliability and validity of the measurement model. Second, SEM was used to examine the structural model, i.e. the relationship between L2MSS, international posture and L2 proficiency. Since SEM does not tolerate missing data and only complete datasets can be used, we replaced the missing values with the corresponding average. All the data analysis procedures were conducted with the R statistical software.
For your convenience, we used the track mode and all the revised parts are marked. Thanks again and we look forward to your further comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
From when the tragedy of the pandemic started, this Reviewer had to read dozens of papers like this.
They are all the same, more or less, they 'take advantage' of the context of COVID-19, they apply very similar methodologies, and they get, more or less, to the same conclusions.
In itself, this could not be a big issue.
The problem is that most of those papers are rarely significant and they do not add almost anything to their panorama of studies.
Therefore, when I have to read a text like this, the only way to approach it is at a merely structural and technical level.
The Introduction is Introduction and Literature Review (which also 'appears' here and there, all over the paper, in a way). It is too much and too 'messy'. It would be better to split it into a proper Introduction which, 'mirroring' the Abstract, explains in detail the scope of the paper and why it is significant in its field, and a proper Literature Review, with a systematic (and expanded) survey and outline of the works cited and used by the Authors and with some lines of comment / analysis per work, to introduce the topics and the relevant literature to the readers, not only the specialized ones.
The Methodology is too short, it should be explained better, step-by-step, with the main aim of reproducibility, and should highlight its originality (actually, if there is originality), describing more comprehensively the approach applied by the Authors.
The Results are ok, but they are too short, as well as the Discussion, which should be definitely expanded, with more analysis and comments, both of the results in themselves and of the issues highlighted by the paper in general. They are the substance of the article and, in their current 'shape', they are too synthetic and even elliptic.
The Conclusions are ok, paradoxically a little repetitive or redundant, in a paper which would need a considerable expansion, to be considered a fully-fledged academic article.
There is a section, entitled "Patents", which has no text, unless the text is composed of the Authors Contributions, Funding, etc., but that would not make sense.
The English language is ok, clear and quite readable - however, in several parts, it is clear that the Authors are not English native speakers, and they lose themselves in pseudo-philosophical digressions and in peculiar simplifications and idealizations of the Chinese context, which should be avoided, absolutely - the help of an English native speaker in re-reading the paper and fixing these issues would be highly beneficial.
All in all, this is not a very significant paper, despite the efforts of the Authors to claim that it is.
After a thorough revision, it could be reconsidered for publication, but the question is if a paper like this is relevant enough to be published in a Journal as prestigious as Sustainability.
Thank you very much.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the constructive comments and insightful suggestions. We have addressed all the points you have raised, as reported below.
Point 1: The Introduction is Introduction and Literature Review (which also 'appears' here and there, all over the paper, in a way). It is too much and too 'messy'. It would be better to split it into a proper Introduction which, 'mirroring' the Abstract, explains in detail the scope of the paper and why it is significant in its field, and a proper Literature Review, with a systematic (and expanded) survey and outline of the works cited and used by the Authors and with some lines of comment / analysis per work, to introduce the topics and the relevant literature to the readers, not only the specialized ones.
Response 1: Thank you. Per your request, we have re-organized and thoroughly revised the introduction section. The first three paragraphs in this section were kept as an introduction, and the remaining paragraphs are the literature review section. The introduction now works like a real introduction that explains the scope (investigating L2MSS, international posture and L2 proficiency of English majors in China in the COVID-19 era) and significance (The COVID-19 has comprehensively and profoundly influenced or even reshaped the EFL learning in China, from the very beginning of learning psychology to the final learning achievements; the international posture and the L2 motivational self system are worth particular concern, in that the international posture is directly associated with and easily influenced by drastic changes in the international environment and it may exert follow-suite influences on the motivation to learn a foreign language) of the paper. As to the literature review section, we made thorough revisions based on your advice. We have tried our best to search for the relevant literature, be it journal articles, monographs or collections. We believe we have found almost all the relevant literature in the mainstream databases and journals. Considering that there are too many works cited and our study is not a review but an empirical study, we are not able and find it inappropriate to analyze the works one by one. Instead, we tried to organize them according to their topics, findings and relevance to our study. We hope our arrangement can help the readers find the whole picture of relevant literature, rather than lost in specialized works.
Point 2: The Methodology is too short, it should be explained better, step-by-step, with the main aim of reproducibility, and should highlight its originality (actually, if there is originality), describing more comprehensively the approach applied by the Authors.
Response 2: Thank you. Per your request, we have re-written this part. More information about the participants was added. The development details of questionnaires and the reliability and validity tests of instruments were provided. The data collection procedures were reported more clearly. The approaches and tests for data analysis, as well as the rationales of the tests, were comprehensively described.
Point 3: The Results are ok, but they are too short, as well as the Discussion, which should be definitely expanded, with more analysis and comments, both of the results in themselves and of the issues highlighted by the paper in general. They are the substance of the article and, in their current 'shape', they are too synthetic and even elliptic.
Response 3: Thank you. Per your request, we have faithfully and comprehensively reported all the results, encompassing descriptive statistics, model fit indices and the final model with path estimates, in a conventional way as the other SEM studies did. We did not elaborate on the results too much in the results section, in consideration that the elaboration can be expanded in the discussion section. To make our discussion more substantial, we have added more comments based on the results and a wider range of literature, and paid special attention to the elaboration of results in a combination with the COVID context.
Point 4: The Conclusions are ok, paradoxically a little repetitive or redundant, in a paper which would need a considerable expansion, to be considered a fully-fledged academic article.
Response 4: Thank you. In the first paragraph of the conclusion, we would like to re-state for the readers our aims, results and significance, which seems, as you have pointed out, a little repetitive or redundant. To make it less repetitive, we have extracted the core information and deleted the less important words. We have also expanded the conclusions, especially the practical implications part.
Point 5: There is a section, entitled "Patents", which has no text, unless the text is composed of the Authors Contributions, Funding, etc., but that would not make sense.
Response 5: Thank you. Actually, we used the journal article template in preparation for our manuscript and forgot to delete the patents section, which is not needed. We feel sorry for this and have deleted this section.
Point 6: The English language is ok, clear and quite readable - however, in several parts, it is clear that the Authors are not English native speakers, and they lose themselves in pseudo-philosophical digressions and in peculiar simplifications and idealizations of the Chinese context, which should be avoided, absolutely - the help of an English native speaker in re-reading the paper and fixing these issues would be highly beneficial.
Response 6: Thank you. Per your request, we have invited an English native speaker to proofread our manuscript. We have also used the Grammarly Premium, an advanced writing assistant software, to help us correct our English language, encompassing spelling, grammar, punctuation, conciseness, collocation, style, fluency and word choice.
For your convenience, we used the track mode and all the revised parts are marked. Thanks again and we look forward to your further comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
The structure of the paragraph (94-107) lacks more references and studies to support the initial position. It is recommended to integrate the examples as a list and not by repetition of the discourse structure in order to benefit reading and comprehension.
Should quotations, which appear in quotation marks, be cited including the page number of the source work?
lines 168-170, the example of Korean learners should be associated with multiple literacies as reflected in international studies such as https://doi.org/10.51302/tce.2019.329.
In the discussion, we note the positive perspective of the study, although it should be indicated what kind of difficulties were encountered during home confinement by COVID. The position of the article shows a high degree of optimism in relation to the central theme of the research, although all the circumstances - even more so in the context of the COVID era - encountered by students and teachers in implementing ESL studies need to be reflected. In this sense, there is a lack of allusion to the methodological mechanisms employed, not only with the semiotic variables (examples from Korea and Spain are mentioned) but also to the pedagogical procedures and strategies that corroborate the results defended in the final part of the article.
The paragraph on lines 389-402 should have more concreteness and depth in the analysis. It would be relevant to specify and exemplify the position used in order to be more efficient in the research prospective indicated in the following paragraph.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the constructive comments and insightful suggestions. We have addressed all the points you have raised, as reported below.
Point 1: The structure of the paragraph (94-107) lacks more references and studies to support the initial position. It is recommended to integrate the examples as a list and not by repetition of the discourse structure in order to benefit reading and comprehension.
Response 1: Thank you. Considering that this paragraph is an introduction to the L2MSS theoretical model, we only cited the original and authoritative book: Dörnyei (2005) Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition, in which the L2MSS was first proposed. More follow-suite theoretical and empirical studies supporting the L2MSS can be seen in the following paragraph. That is the reason why the paragraph you mentioned lacks references. Per your request, we have added one more work of Dörnyei’s. As to the presentation of examples, we appreciate your advice aiming at being reader-friendly. Considering that these examples are used as illustrations to the corresponding theoretical definitions and that they are not too lengthy (one or two sentences, not those paragraph-long citations), we find it inappropriate to present them as a list. Instead, readers may be expecting an example right after reading a theoretical definition. Therefore, we kept the presentation of examples the way it is.
Point 2: Should quotations, which appear in quotation marks, be cited including the page number of the source work?
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, the direct quotations should be cited including the page number. We have corrected all these quotations.
Point 3: lines 168-170, the example of Korean learners should be associated with multiple literacies as reflected in international studies such as https://doi.org/10.51302/tce.2019.329.
Response 3: Thank you for providing more literature. We have added this work in the references.
Point 4: In the discussion, we note the positive perspective of the study, although it should be indicated what kind of difficulties were encountered during home confinement by COVID. The position of the article shows a high degree of optimism in relation to the central theme of the research, although all the circumstances - even more so in the context of the COVID era - encountered by students and teachers in implementing ESL studies need to be reflected. In this sense, there is a lack of allusion to the methodological mechanisms employed, not only with the semiotic variables (examples from Korea and Spain are mentioned) but also to the pedagogical procedures and strategies that corroborate the results defended in the final part of the article.
Response 4: Thank you. As you have pointed out, it is true that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about both challenges and opportunities. The COVID-19 era, although having caused too much tragedy and difficulty, has at the same time witnessed and incubated the rapid and widespread applications of a variety of modern technologies for English learning, such as virtual reality and meta-universe. All of these can equip English learners with great interest and sound engagement in the English classroom, giving rise to effective enhancement in the final proficiency. In the discussion, we have in general taken a positive stance, as the SEM results showed us. However, we have also noted the negative side, such as the negative effect of ought-to L2 self. Per your request, we have made deep reflections on the negative effects of COVID, trying to keep a balance between both sides, and have elaborated the pedagogical implications of our results.
Point 5: The paragraph on lines 389-402 should have more concreteness and depth in the analysis. It would be relevant to specify and exemplify the position used in order to be more efficient in the research prospective indicated in the following paragraph.
Response 5: Thank you. We did not expand our analysis here, for we thought the conclusion part should not be too lengthy and wordy. Meanwhile, we agree with you that concrete and in-depth examples are necessary. Per your request, we tried to keep a balance between conciseness and concreteness. We expanded our analysis and at the same time kept it in a limited space.
For your convenience, we used the track mode and all the revised parts are marked. Thanks again and we look forward to your further comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for considering my comments in revising your manuscript. The introduction, literature review, and Research methods are much better now. These sections are not far from the publishable quality.
The findings section is generally good.
The discussion section is generally descriptive. It does discuss the findings in relation to the literature. However, the discussion is more about elaborating on the findings. There is a need to highlight the knowledge contributions of the study.
You could benefit from a more thorough proofread. Errors also occur with referencing. Please check if something like ‘[5] found that …’ is appropriate.
I am looking forward to reading your revisions.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the constructive comments and insightful suggestions. We have addressed all the points you have raised, as reported below.
Point 1: The introduction, literature review, and Research methods are much better now. These sections are not far from the publishable quality. The findings section is generally good.
Response 1: Thank you for your positive comment.
Point 2: The discussion section is generally descriptive. It does discuss the findings in relation to the literature. However, the discussion is more about elaborating on the findings. There is a need to highlight the knowledge contributions of the study.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the discussion section carefully.
The contributions of this study are now highlighted. our findings confirm the validity of L2MSS and the relationships between L2MSS, international posture and L2 proficiency in the English majors in China. Meanwhile, our findings that the ought-to L2 self negatively predicts L2 experience and L2 proficiency, the international posture negatively predicts the ought-to L2 self, and the ideal L2 self weakly predicts L2 proficiency, reveal the uniqueness of this cohort of EFL learners, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Considering the variations across learners, space and time, we suggest that motivation studies should be conducted with definite and targeted learners and spatio-temporal context rather than in general, so as to maximize its pedagogical direction and usage. Besides, we reveal from the perspective of L2 motivation how the COVID pandemic has influenced, reshaped and even re-defined our language learning and development, which merits sustained tracking and investigation.
Point 3: You could benefit from a more thorough proofread. Errors also occur with referencing. Please check if something like ‘[5] found that …’ is appropriate.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made thorough proofreading several times and, as you said, have found some errors. As to the referencing style “[5] found that …”, we have checked the submission guideline and found that the authors’ names should be added along with the citation. We have made corrections accordingly. For the sake of readability and clarity, we did not use the track mode when correcting the reference.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper has already been reviewed and revised thoroughly, before my 'further' review, therefore I am dealing with a highly enhanced version.
The Introduction is good, no major concerns about that.
The Literature Review is a standard literature review, which is a very welcomed thing, and is comprehensive enough - it could be surely expanded, but it is not a 'necessity'.
The methodology is well explained, although it is quite simple, but, for this kind of papers, the methodology cannot be anything but what it is, therefore that cannot be considered a flaw.
Results are well implemented, in the article, but the related section should be expanded a little and, perhaps, made like a sort of list, exhaustive, but schematic, for the sake of 'readability' among all the readers, not only the specialized ones.
The Discussion is consistent enough, but it would need to be expanded a little, adding comments and analysis, which will make the paper stronger.
Conclusions are ok and, perhaps, could be enhanced by stressing further on the significance of this paper in its panorama of studies.
The sample is large enough to be, potentially, indicative.
The English language is clear, but, sometimes, there are some inaccuracies and some flaws, especially at the level of style - it should be further revised, with the help of a native-speaker.
All in all, the article is 'ok', its topic is not revolutionary, its implementation is basic, and it is the 'usual' paper exploiting the tragedy of COVID-19, but the research goal is relatively solid and the format has been enhanced enough to make it almost acceptable for publication.
Thank you very much.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the constructive comments and insightful suggestions. We have addressed all the points you have raised, as reported below.
Point 1: This paper has already been reviewed and revised thoroughly, before my 'further' review, therefore I am dealing with a highly enhanced version.
Response 1: Thank you for your positive comment.
Point 2: The Introduction is good, no major concerns about that.
Response 2: Thank you for your positive comment.
Point 3: The Literature Review is a standard literature review, which is a very welcomed thing, and is comprehensive enough - it could be surely expanded, but it is not a 'necessity'.
Response 3: Thank you for your positive comment. We agree with you that the literature review could be expanded and have actually made some revisions, trying to make the review more systematic and comprehensive.
Point 4: The methodology is well explained, although it is quite simple, but, for this kind of papers, the methodology cannot be anything but what it is, therefore that cannot be considered a flaw.
Response 4: Thank you for your positive comment.
Point 5: Results are well implemented, in the article, but the related section should be expanded a little and, perhaps, made like a sort of list, exhaustive, but schematic, for the sake of 'readability' among all the readers, not only the specialized ones.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. Per your request, we have added sub-headings and re-organized the report of results according to our research questions, so as to prove the readability. Considering the readers may not be familiar with the SEM technique, we have explained the technical details in a plain manner.
Point 6: The Discussion is consistent enough, but it would need to be expanded a little, adding comments and analysis, which will make the paper stronger.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. Per your request, we have thoroughly proofread the discussion part. We have expanded the comments and analysis by considering the COVID-19 pandemic, the uniqueness of English majors, the social background of China, and the interplay of these factors. In particular, we have highlighted the findings that have not been reported before, and made a deeper analysis of these novel findings.
Point 7: Conclusions are ok and, perhaps, could be enhanced by stressing further on the significance of this paper in its panorama of studies.
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We have highlighted the significance of this paper in the conclusion section, in terms of the theoretical contribution (generalizability of L2MSS and the possible contextual variations of L2 motivation) and pedagogical implications for the sustainability of L2 learning in the COVID era, in particular.
Point 8: The sample is large enough to be, potentially, indicative.
Response 8: Thank you for your positive comment.
Point 9: The English language is clear, but, sometimes, there are some inaccuracies and some flaws, especially at the level of style - it should be further revised, with the help of a native-speaker.
Response 9: Thank you. We have made thorough proofreading several times and tried our best to annihilate the errors. We have also invited a native speaker to help us.
Point 10: All in all, the article is 'ok', its topic is not revolutionary, its implementation is basic, and it is the 'usual' paper exploiting the tragedy of COVID-19, but the research goal is relatively solid and the format has been enhanced enough to make it almost acceptable for publication.
Response 10: Thank you for your positive comment, and we really appreciate all your comments and suggestions, without which our manuscript could not have been improved this far.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for considering my feedback and revising your paper. I believe it's ready for publication now. Congratulations!
