The Usage of MALL in Learners’ Readiness to Speak English

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article reviews studies that are relevant to the implementation of MALL in the readiness to speak English. 

In line 30, the authors mention in brief that language learning with quality is related to the purpose of sustaining future industries through life-long learning. However, this article needs to explain and specify how language learning, especially MALL, is related to sustainability or sustainable development.

In line 65, the first research question of this study is to figure out affective variables constructed by MALL that affect learners’ readiness to speak in English. However, the authors mentioned that the key words of four databases were directly related to MALL and speaking skills, not learners’ readiness to speak. Actually, in lines 58-60, the authors compared this current review with the previous review. The previous reviews were focused on MALL offering ways to develop speaking skills, so that the current review attempted to fill the gap since this study is to find the effects of MALL in the readiness to speak English. I would like to suggest that the key words of the databases should be directly related to “MALL and learner’s readiness to speak”.

In the result section(lines 248-269), the four affective variables constructed by MALL that affect learners’ readiness in English speaking skills in this study were already identified in the previous studies (lines 100-124). I wonder what are the distinct results in this current review compared to the previous studies. In other words, are there any other affective variables related to MALL and learners’ readiness to speak?

The phrases, “learners’ increased in motivation”(line 303) and “the increased in motivation”(line 369), need to be checked in grammar.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors offer a systematic review of previous research and focus on the usage of MALL in learners' readiness to speak English. I believe the study helps the reader better understand that relation and the authors offer a concise analysis of the studies selected, and explain why and how they narrowed down the final number of studies reviewed. 

At the introductory section, before the Research questions, I would like to see a more clear motivation of why this study is important and how it is going to advance the field of second language learning and speaking, in this particular case. I feel like the transition to the Research questions is a bit abrupt.  

In lines 84-85 the authors should clarify what ESL and EFL refer to and their differences. That will help the reader better understand your explanation.

As per the student sample in the reviewed studies, they are very different, ranging from primary school to university students. In my opinion, this should be stated as a potential limitation of the study at the end of the manuscript, since feedback on MALL applications can vary extensively with age.    

English style can be improved throughout the manuscript. I indicate some corrections below for the authors' convenience. I encourage the authors to conduct an overall revision of English style throughout the manuscript. It can be improved.  

l. 9: still struggle to...

l. 12: of speaking

l. 18: learners, which ... in the literature

l. 19: necessitates= requires/demands...

l. 38: in their respective fields

l. 204: the majority of the research was conducted

l. 303: increase in

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all of my comments and corrections.