Developing an AI-Based Learning System for L2 Learners’ Authentic and Ubiquitous Learning in English Language

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I transmit a great deal of appreciation into the coffers of the authors for taking up their pens for this unique topic. The authors have made a comprehensive analysis of the representation of the importance of AI-based Mobile Learning Systems for learning English Vocabulary and Grammar. Their treatment of the subject is meaningful, logical and comprehensive.

Along with the points of appreciation, the authors need to consider the improvement of the article suggested as follows,

1.     The title of the article is lengthy. It can be shortened and more precise.

2.     The aim of the study can be highlighted/mentioned after the second sentence of the abstract.

3.     The findings of the study can be highlighted/mentioned before the last sentence of the abstract.

4.     Though the study has novelty, it misses mentioning it in the Introduction.

5.     The construction of paper flow can be mentioned briefly before the end of the Introduction.

6.     It seems the authors made a lot of effort to construct this research; however, why did they not frame hypotheses or research questions? I recommend that the hypotheses can be derived from the existing literature, and subsequently, they can be validated using appropriate hypothesis tests.

7.     The literature review section is too short, and it can be expanded. I believe Education 4.0 is also a similar field related to AI-based learning. So, the authors may consider the research related to Education 4.0.

8.     How can the authors justify the participants' strength is enough to conduct the research as they obtained results only from 20 undergraduate and postgraduate students? Please justify and explain this with relevant research conducted earlier or parameters fixed for empirical research.

9.     The qualitative data obtained from the participants were not presented clearly. The responses are merely summarized, as the authors should make a clear presentation based on the qualitative methodology.

10.  The discussion section of the study is missing. It must be included, and it has to discuss the present study results with existing similar research outcomes.

11.  In the conclusions section, the authors have just summarize the entire research; instead, they must highlight the significant outcomes of the research, but it is missing in conclusion. I recommend that the authors must deal conclusion with the study’s outstanding findings and state the practical implication of the study.

12.  The limitations of the study can be defined more clearly.

13.  The authors can include the following citations & references that are more related to the present research.

·       Srivani, V., Hariharasudan, A., Nawaz, N., & Ratajczak, S. (2022). Impact of education 4.0 among engineering students for learning English language. PLoS ONE, 17(2 February) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261717

 

·       Hariharasudan, A., & Kot, S. (2018). A Scoping Review on Digital English and Education 4.0 for Industry 4.0. Social Sciences, 7(11) doi:10.3390/socsci7110227

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Please see the word file for the detailed responses.

Thank you for your time.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

·        -The introduction and related nliterature is well structured

·        -For “AI-Enabled Language Learning” section, please see the following references.

o   Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) research trends and patterns through bibliometric analysis: Empowering language learners through ubiquitous educational Technologies https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102925

o   Artificial intelligence (AI)-based mobile learning in ELT for EFL learners: The implementation and learners' attitudes https://doi.org/10.53402/ijesss.v2i2.40

·        -Can you clearly report the methodology and research design of the study, it was confusing and it would be good to express it at the beginning of the methodology section. 

·        -Suggestions and future implications of the study can be improved.

 

·        -In all, I enjoyed the nreading manuscript and I believe that it would be a good contribution to the related literatüre.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Please see the attachment for the detailed responses.

Thank you for your time.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, this study has done a lot and it is a good report of the system that has been created. However, what I would like to see more of is a discussion section added to the paper.  The discussion could strengthen the authors’ claims for this system addressing the current limitations of other systems or utilizations of AI for learning. In addition, please find a number of other issues that should be easily addressed. 

The abstract could be improved by indicating whether the data from the evaluation study originated. For example, who was interviewed and how many interviews? 

 

Proved is a strong word (line 41)

 

You might want to contextualize this a bit (line 51) as it seems only some places in China are still shutting down schools due to COVID-19. 

 

Line 129 – maybe use the past tense here? 

 

Line 237 – in and outside the classroom?

 

For the evaluation study, could you justify the reasoning for the participants that were selected? Is it because the mobile learning system is only for this age group? What’s the justification? Or just convenience sampling? 

 

Feedbacked – line 301 (provided feedback on?)

 

Where did the interview questions come from? What were their construction based on? Some aims or maybe RQs? Or ideas?

 

It is suggested that you add a discussion section to your paper to actually discuss the benefits of the system shown by this evaluation study. You could re-emphasize here by engaging in the previous literature how your system addresses some of the many gaps that are left by other systems. 

 

You could probably split the conclusions, implications, and limitations into three sections.  Probably give the implications first, then limitations, and end with conclusions. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Please see the attachment of the detailed responses.

Thank you for your time.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

From the revised manuscript, it is observed that the authors have revised more in the manuscript. However, some of my comments/suggestions have not been clearly revised. Please see the details below, 

1. The construction of paper flow can be mentioned briefly before the end of the Introduction.

For the above comment, the authors have not updated as suggested, and there are no revisions made as mentioned in the revision report. I mean the authors to provide a short note on upcoming sections of the paper but it is not mentioned. Please add the same in the future revised manuscript. 

2. The discussion section of the study is missing. It must be included, and it has to discuss the present study results with existing similar research outcomes.

For this comment, the authors must add a separate section for discussion, not clubbed with the conclusion. In addition to that, the present study results should be discussed with the related studies' results. 

Besides, in the revised manuscript, there is a phrase [Error! Reference source not found.] mentioned in most of the places unintentionally/mistakenly. Please use the recommended citation format as suggested by the journal and correct this error throughout the paper. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. We have made revisions in the revised version. Please see our responses in the attachment.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf