ELSA as an Education 4.0 Tool for Learning Business English Communication

Comments

Authors response

Changes made

Corrections carried our pages

R1C1: English language revision (by a native speaker or a language specialist). Starting with the abstract (line 16, for instance) and throughout the entire manuscript, there are issues with tense use, use of articles, unnecessary capitalizations, word order, etc

Thanks so much for your

valuable comments.

The manuscript has been proofread and edited by a native speaker with the help of MDPI English Editing Service.

Page 1-20

R1C2: The article is valuable as revealed by the methodology part (there is a lot of detail there that can be shortened so that it becomes more fluid, but nevertheless it is clear). It states the hypotheses and then revisits them thoroughly with a consistent statistical background in the results and discussions part. However, to balance the paper out, I would suggest restructuring the abstract, introductory, and literature review parts. They are slightly imbalanced, lack cohesiveness, and hinder understanding, as well as negatively impact the overall quality of the writing

Thanks for your suggestion, which makes the source of

the data clear.

a) Thank you for the comments. As per the reviewer’s suggestion, the methodology part was revisited and revised accordingly.

b) For getting the cohesiveness the paper is restructured in its abstract, introduction and literature review and subdivisions are given according to the the topics.

a) Page -8

b) Page 1

R1C3: It seems that the premises for the research are lost within the introduction for instance the last paragraph, could they be more clearly stated?

This is a helpful and

valuable comment.

The introduction part is revisited and the details about the research study are amended.

Page 1

R1C4: When it comes to the objectives, why improve vocabulary, but only investigate, and identify the other language skills?

Thank you for your

suggestions which make the article clear.

Thank you for pointing out. It is defined that the students were already aware of the basic English vocabulary so including many new Business English vocabulary was the objective of the current research.

The corrections are added in the discussion section.

Page 18

R1C5: In the Results part, is it paramount that the theoretical information about the T-test is included, as perhaps it could find its way better in the methodology part?

This is a wonderful

suggestion, I appreciate the reviewer very much.

Thank you for the suggestions. The study’s theoretical background of the paired sample T-test is added in the result part as per the suggestion.

Page 11

R1C6: I would kindly suggest that the authors improve the overall accuracy and clarity of the Discussions part.

Thank you for your

comments.

We have added the necessary details to attain clarity in the discussion part.

The manuscript has been proofread and edited by a native speaker with the help of MDPI English Editing Service.

Page 16

Comments

Authors response

Changes made

Corrections carried our pages

R2C1: The Authors tell us that their study is necessary, but I am not completely sure that it is truly necessary. 

Thanks so much for your

valuable comments.

Thank you for your comments.

Please allow us to explain. As English is a universal language, it is predominant for management students to improve their language skills, and the importance of Business English is discussed in the review of the literature part. In addition, we are in a digital era, and most businesses are moved to digitalization, including education. Thus, the present research will highlight the importance of Education 4.0 for learning Business English. So, we propose that this study would be necessary in the present and future globalized and digitalized world.

Page 3

R2C2: The 'experiment' is relatively standard, but 1) the number of participants is ok and 2) the different stages make it 'serious' enough to be considered, in its 'results', indicative. 

Thank you for the comments.

Thank you for appreciating.

R2C3: The Introduction is ok, the Authors should stress a bit more on a) their research goal, b) how they plan to achieve it, and c) explain better the value of their research in the related panorama of studies. 

This is a helpful and

valuable comment.

We agree with the reviewer's suggestion,

a. The correction was carried out in the introduction, mentioning the research goal clearly.

b. The method and the plan to achieve the research goal were added.

c. Panorama of the studies was discussed in detail in the review of literature part, and the corrections were amended in it.

a) Page 3

b) Page 3

c) Page 3

R2C4: The Literature Review is there, in a section entitled "Review of Literature", and I cannot ask for more, actually. 

Thank you for your comments

Subheadings were added to make the review of the literature part clear.

Page 3

R2C5: Sections 3 and 4 are too short, they can be merged and/or expanded, and that would make them more significant. After all, the 'problematization' of a 'problem' is always valuable, in the academic discourse, and, therefore, an enhancement in that direction would help. 

Thanks for your suggestion which makes the source of the data clear.

We strongly agree with the reviewer’s point of view. As the reviewer suggested, sections 3 and 4 are combined and expanded to make them more significant.

Page 7

R2C6: Methodology is ok, quite transparent, not very original, but surely deep enough.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for your comments. The novelty of the study is mentioned in the discussion part.

Page 19

R2C7: Are the results indicative/valuable? I do not know, but, at least, the related section is readable and quite clear. 

Thanks for your valuable comments

Thank you for the comment. Please allow us to explain.

The results of the studies are indicative, and as there is a considerable mean difference between the pre-test and post-test. The values are

1.     Receptive Competency of Listening (0.50707),

2.     Productive Competency of Speaking (0.46263),

3.      Receptive Competency of Reading (0.45253),

4.     Grammar Skills (0.43232),

5.     Productive Competency of writing (0.42424),

6.      Phonetic Utterance (0.41414),

7.      Lexicon Usage (0.38788)

8.      Digital Literacy (0.35152).

From the test results, it is found that the value of  p=0.00 and r < 0.9 for all the variables prove that the values are highly significant and correlated enough.

Page 11

R2C8: Section 7 is ok, beyond expectations, I like it. 

This is a helpful and

valuable comment.

Thank you for appreciating.

R2C9: The Discussion, conversely, which is / should be part of the 'meat' of the paper, should be expanded (a lot), adding more analysis and comments. The Authors should make more effort, in particular, in i) giving serious reasons of the 'significance' and 'necessity' of their study and ii) further confirming the validity and value of their results and findings. That is essential, to make the paper stronger and to confirm its relevance in its field of studies

Thank you for your

suggestions which make the article clear.

The authors agree with the observations made by the reviewer. As per the reviewer's suggestion and also for a better understanding,

i) Authors have added the tabulation for discussing the existing study and its value for stressing the significance and the necessity.

ii) The tabulation has a new finding column, which further validates the methods and findings of the current study compared with the previous findings.

Page 16

R2C10: The Conclusion should be expanded, slightly, and, like in a 'mirror' with the Introduction, should summarize the main scope of the paper and how the Authors have been able to achieve their research goal.

This is a wonderful

suggestion, and I thank the reviewer very much for improving the quality of our paper.

Thank you for your valuable comment. Few changes are made in the conclusion section.

Page 19

R2C11: The English language is clear enough and understandable enough, but it is too 'markedly' non-native and the Authors would need the help of a native-speaker, to make it more natural and more up to academic standards.

Thank you for your

comments.

The manuscript has been proofread and edited by a native speaker with the help of MDPI English Editing Service.

Page 1

R2C12: All in all, the paper is not bad, but I) I do not know to what extent we can consider it truly relevant, II) the Discussion needs to be 'heavily' enhanced, III) the language and the written style need to be improved considerably, to become aligned with academic standards

Thank you for your

suggestions that make the article clear.

Thank you for your comments.

I) The results and finding section prove the study is relevant, and Cronbach’s alpha value of the study is 0.888, which proves the study is highly valid.

II) As per suggestion, corrections were amended.

III) The manuscript has been proofread and edited by a native speaker with the help of MDPI English Editing Service.

I)Page 9

II) Page 16

III) Page 1