A Study of Chinese University Students’ English Learning Motivation, Anxiety, Use of English and English Achievement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1.     The iThenticate report shows that the similarity index of this manuscript is as high as 31%. I do not believe this level is acceptable. Reducing it to 20% or less is essential.

2.     I do not recommend conducting gender differences analysis in research not related to physical capabilities and reproduction. It may not be relevant to your research topic and could reinforce gender stereotypes. Additionally, due to the Rosenthal effect, it may result in one gender really feel inferior to the other. This is a research taboo in our university, as this kind of study would never receive ethics approval from our ethics committee. I strongly suggest removing the third research question and the corresponding content.

3.     Table 4 should not investigate the correlations among several scales; instead, it should investigate the correlations between constructs (e.g., anxiety, motivation). Please revise.

4.     Please ensure Table 4 is complete. The current table is unconventional and could be considered incorrect.

5.     The first column of Table 5 is inexplicable, and the table header is meaningless. Please revise.

6.     You have cited many old references. While I understand they are authoritative, I still suggest reducing the number of old references. Ensure that more than 80% of your references are from the past five years.

7.     In subsection 2.4, you mention anxiety. Please ensure it is specified as language anxiety.

8.     In subsection 2.4, you mention L2 contact. Please verify this term. I could not find the exact term on Google Scholar. Would L2 exposure be more appropriate? Please confirm.

9.     Pay attention to wording. In the research questions section, ensure you specify language anxiety and language learning motivation, not just anxiety and motivation. It is crucial for the clarity of the research questions, especially as this section may be read independently.

10. There are issues with citations in some places, such as line 83. If it is "Liu's (2018) studies," there cannot be "Liu & Xiangming, 2019" in parentheses.

11. Citation management software cannot produce the format "Liu's (2018) study." I suggest changing to "the study of Liu (2018)" to avoid issues. Namely, there should be no symbols between the author and year in in-text citations.

12. I recommend removing the abbreviation SA and using the full term instead. Excessive abbreviations hinder readability.

13. Table 1 needs to be redone. It lacks headers and does not conform to standard table formatting. Table 2 is well-done, with headers like "Measure," "Mean," and "SD," and corresponding values in each column. Table 1 should follow a similar format to be readable.

14. Many tables are not formatted properly. For instance, Table 4 lacks a header, and Table 8 combines two tables into one. Please revise.

15. The major findings are not concise enough. I suggest refining and reorganizing them. Lines 531 to 548 present major findings in bullet points, making them seem fragmented and failing to highlight key points.

16. Your first sentence states that two affective variables are important, then mentions "motivation and anxiety in second language learning." It is unclear whether this refers to "motivation and L2 anxiety" or "L2 learning motivation and L2 anxiety." This ambiguity should be addressed. Additionally, you later use the term "foreign language anxiety." Ensure consistency in terminology.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above. 

Author Response

Many thanks for your insightful and constructive comments and suggestions, all of which have been well considered and incorporated into the revised manuscript.

1. The iThenticate report shows that the similarity index of this manuscript is as high as 31%. I do not believe this level is acceptable. Reducing it to 20% or less is essential.

--We made extensive revisions in the revised manuscript and hope the similarity index should be much lower. Another reason for the relatively high similarity might be due to the directly quoted definitions and references cited in the manuscript. Unfortunately, we could not do the similarity check ourselves right now.

 

2. I do not recommend conducting gender differences analysis in research not related to physical capabilities and reproduction. It may not be relevant to your research topic and could reinforce gender stereotypes. Additionally, due to the Rosenthal effect, it may result in one gender really feel inferior to the other. This is a research taboo in our university, as this kind of study would never receive ethics approval from our ethics committee. I strongly suggest removing the third research question and the corresponding content.

--removed as suggested

 

3. Table 4 should not investigate the correlations among several scales; instead, it should investigate the correlations between constructs (e.g., anxiety, motivation). Please revise.

--Yes, it reports results of coefficients between anxiety and motivation constructs, as well as with use of English and English achievement

 

4. Please ensure Table 4 is complete. The current table is unconventional and could be considered incorrect.

-- It is complete, since this study only wanted to examine the correlations between use of English, anxiety, motivation scales and English achievement, NOT the correlations between motivation constructs.

 

5. The first column of Table 5 is inexplicable, and the table header is meaningless. Please revise.

--The are the predictors for English achievement. ‘predictor’ was added for clarity. Similar headers have been used for regression analysis results in many publications.

 

6. You have cited many old references. While I understand they are authoritative, I still suggest reducing the number of old references. Ensure that more than 80% of your references are from the past five years.

-- Many new publications were cited and replaced old ones. Considering the classic works on L2 learning motivation and foreign language anxiety, it is hard to have 80% of the references are from the past five years. But around 60% of the references are in the revised manuscript.

 

7. In subsection 2.4, you mention anxiety. Please ensure it is specified as language anxiety.

--Foreign language anxiety and English classroom anxiety were consistently used in the revised manuscript

 

8. In subsection 2.4, you mention L2 contact. Please verify this term. I could not find the exact term on Google Scholar. Would L2 exposure be more appropriate? Please confirm.

--to avoid confusion, contact with the L2 was consistently used in the revised manuscript.

 

9. Pay attention to wording. In the research questions section, ensure you specify language anxiety and language learning motivation, not just anxiety and motivation. It is crucial for the clarity of the research questions, especially as this section may be read independently.

--Yes, English classroom anxiety and English learning motivation were clearly used in the revised research questions for clarity.

 

10. There are issues with citations in some places, such as line 83. If it is "Liu's (2018) studies," there cannot be "Liu & Xiangming, 2019" in parentheses.

--revised, and all citations and references have been carefully proofread to be consistent with APA

 

11. Citation management software cannot produce the format "Liu's (2018) study." I suggest changing to "the study of Liu (2018)" to avoid issues. Namely, there should be no symbols between the author and year in in-text citations.

--Yes, changed

 

12. I recommend removing the abbreviation SA and using the full term instead. Excessive abbreviations hinder readability.

--Yes, study-abroad instead of SA was consistently used in the revised manuscript.

 

13. Table 1 needs to be redone. It lacks headers and does not conform to standard table formatting. Table 2 is well-done, with headers like "Measure," "Mean," and "SD," and corresponding values in each column. Table 1 should follow a similar format to be readable.

--Yes, header ‘variable/score’ was added and Table 1 was re-formatted to be more reader-friendly.

 

14. Many tables are not formatted properly. For instance, Table 4 lacks a header, and Table 8 combines two tables into one. Please revise.

--Header was added in appropriate places in all tables.

--Table 8 was removed since questions and findings about gender difference were removed in the revised manuscript.

15. The major findings are not concise enough. I suggest refining and reorganizing them. Lines 531 to 548 present major findings in bullet points, making them seem fragmented and failing to highlight key points.

--Revised as suggested into a coherent paragraph (pp.12-13).

 

16. Your first sentence states that two affective variables are important, then mentions "motivation and anxiety in second language learning." It is unclear whether this refers to "motivation and L2 anxiety" or "L2 learning motivation and L2 anxiety." This ambiguity should be addressed. Additionally, you later use the term "foreign language anxiety." Ensure consistency in terminology.

-- for clarity, L2 (second language) learning motivation, foreign language anxiety, English learning motivation and English classroom anxiety were consistently used in the revised manuscript.

17. The paper has been carefully proofread several times by the authors and a native speaker.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review comments

The appears to be a good paper in general.

However, it needs some revisions.

authors need to be aware that for practicing and for providing an immersive learning experience, the next frontier is adoption of VR based learning approaches. Pl refer to them in a  new subsection 'Future trends' or in the conclusion

 

Points:

#1 pl do a rigorous proof read

Grammatical mistakes here and there. I would recommend to use shorter sentences with more clarity especially when multiple factors are being outlined.

For example:

Consider this sentence:

First, this study was  primarily quantitative and thus unable to depict a more comprehensive picture of or identify nuanced differences in use of English, anxiety and motivation between students with different genders.

I would re word it as:

This was primarily a quantitative study; a more comprehensive analysis is necessary to throw more light on (a) identifying  nuanced differences in use of English, (b) understanding anxiety and motivation issues.

 Two others sentences: bad grammar

Example # 1:

And use of English significantly predicted both  male and female students’ English achievement, with the effect size for female students  being slightly larger.

My point: you cannot begin a sentence with ‘And’. Pl re-word.

The words ‘effect size’ is confusing.pl re word.

Example 2:

Nevertheless, reasons for these findings had better be researched with triangulated data.

My point: this is confusing. Not sure what the author is trying to convey.

It may be clearer to write:

Nevertheless, there is a need to research the underlying reasons with additional analysis.

 

# 2: literature ron emerging approaches to learning

Using 3D simulated environments  is becoming more commonplace.

It is important in the conclusion  section for the authors to refer to papers involving learning and use of Virtual Reality based learning environments (VLEs). There are numerous papers in this topic. Authors need to include a paragraph pointing to recent trends in learning.

They can discuss these papers in the conclusion section under future research or future trends.

I would point to 2  such papers: in your resubmission, refer to them and summarize their work.

Article # 1: Virtual Learning Environments in Engineering and STEM Education, 2013 Frontiers in Education (FIE)/IEEE Conference, Oct 23-26, 2013 Oklahoma City, OK.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6684874

Article # 2: Teaching Languages in Virtual Reality: Tips and Tools for Getting Started

https://fltmag.com/teaching-languages-in-virtual-reality-tips-and-tools-for-getting-started/

 

why is including these papers important? These are emerging trends.

Their potential has been studied in various target students: general population to teach science (STEM) as well as for students such as autistic students who do get anxious.

VLEs support students practicing in a realistic 3D environment such as a virtual 3D classroom, lab etc. It allows students who are not confident in their English skills to practice in a safe and friendly environment and they can be guided by avatars (or human mannequins).

I would request authors to add the few paper suggested above:

This can appear in the conclusion of the paper under future research directions or trends.

Or the authors can create a new section called future trends or research directions.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

yes needs improvement of english grammar.

Author Response

Many thanks for your insightful and constructive comments and suggestions, all of which have been well considered and incorporated into the revised manuscript.

It appears to be a good paper in general.

--many thanks!

--However, it needs some revisions.

authors need to be aware that for practicing and for providing an immersive learning experience, the next frontier is adoption of VR based learning approaches. Pl refer to them in a new subsection 'Future trends' or in the conclusion

 --Very good suggestion! We did it in the Conclusion (different para. of the Conclusion, esp. the last few para.)

Points:

#1: pl do a rigorous proof read

--a) all the sentences listed here were revised, b) the manuscript has been carefully proofread several times by the authors, and then by a native speaker.

# 2: literaturer on emerging approaches to learning

Using 3D simulated environments  is becoming more commonplace.

It is important in the conclusion  section for the authors to refer to papers involving learning and use of Virtual Reality based learning environments (VLEs). There are numerous papers in this topic. Authors need to include a paragraph pointing to recent trends in learning. They can discuss these papers in the conclusion section under future research or future trends.

--more recent publications were cited in writing up VR-based foreign language learning in the revised manuscript (in Conclusion).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To enhance readability, it is advisable to retain the full forms of abbreviations in certain contexts. While "L2 learning" and "L2 contexts" are acceptable, using "second language" instead of "the L2" improves clarity when not paired with other terms. For instance, "students' use of the second language" is preferable to "students' use of the L2" (line 497). A revision is suggested.

The abbreviation EFL did not present its full form upon first use. Despite its widespread recognition, I recommend providing the full term at its initial mention. Please revise accordingly.

In line 349, SOEP is paired with the full term "self-rated overall English proficiency", but the other four (SSEP, SREP, SLEP, SWEP) lack corresponding full term. Please ensure consistency.

Currently, Section 5.1 is titled 'Correlations,' and Section 5.2 is 'Predictors for Students' English Achievement.' However, the content preceding Section 5.1, including the introductory paragraph and Table 3, seems to constitute a distinct topic or segment. I propose introducing a new section number for this preceding content to enhance the structure and clarity of the document.

Author Response

We are very grateful to you for the constructive comments and suggestions! All have been carefully considered and incorporated into the revision.

1. To enhance readability, it is advisable to retain the full forms of abbreviations in certain contexts. While "L2 learning" and "L2 contexts" are acceptable, using "second language" instead of "the L2" improves clarity when not paired with other terms. For instance, "students' use of the second language" is preferable to "students' use of the L2" (line 497). A revision is suggested.

--As suggested, ‘second language’ was used to replace L2 in many places of the manuscript.

2. The abbreviation EFL did not present its full form upon first use. Despite its widespread recognition, I recommend providing the full term at its initial mention. Please revise accordingly.

--The full name was provided in p.2, Line 70.

3. In line 349, SOEP is paired with the full term "self-rated overall English proficiency", but the other four (SSEP, SREP, SLEP, SWEP) lack corresponding full term. Please ensure consistency.

--All were provided in Notes of Table 1 on p.6, lines 372-374.

4. Currently, Section 5.1 is titled 'Correlations,' and Section 5.2 is 'Predictors for Students' English Achievement.' However, the content preceding Section 5.1, including the introductory paragraph and Table 3, seems to constitute a distinct topic or segment. I propose introducing a new section number for this preceding content to enhance the structure and clarity of the document.

--subheading ‘5.1. Statistical analysis of English achievement’ was added

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This is a much improved paper.

I have a few comments;

#1. English grammar needs to be improved. I had indicated earlier that this needed to be addressed. Note I only pointed out a few sentences (not all of them). However, I noticed there are numerous sentences that need to be re-worded. This paper cannot be published without these English language modifications.

2. The title has become complicated.

The original title in round 1 was:

Motivation, Anxiety, Use of English and English Achievement: A Study of Chinese University Students

The modified title in the revised version is:

English Learning Motivation, English Classroom Anxiety, Use of English and English Achievement: A Study of Chinese University Students

This makes it unnecessarily wordy – I would not recommend such a complicated title

I would suggest the modified title to be:

Study of Motivation and Anxiety on English Usage and Achievement among Chinese University students

3. In the conclusion, it was good to see added references to the role of VR in helping students learn languages. A suggestion is to add a couple of references to highlight the potential of VR based learning in other areas such as engineering learning, helping reduction of stuttering among students, etc. You can google VR and STEM learning, etc. or you can browse these downloadable papers which I use in my class related to cyber learning (any 2 papers is fine).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261047424_Virtual_Learning_Environments_in_engineering_and_STEM_education

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378606434_The_usage_of_virtual_reality_in_engineering_education

I recommend publishing this paper after these minor changes are made

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A technical writer proficient in english needs to edit and improve the grammar in the paper.

Author Response

We are very grateful to you for the constructive comments and suggestions! All have been carefully considered and incorporated into the revision.

#1. English grammar needs to be improved. I had indicated earlier that this needed to be addressed. Note I only pointed out a few sentences (not all of them). However, I noticed there are numerous sentences that need to be re-worded. This paper cannot be published without these English language modifications.

--To respond to round-1 reviewer comments, the paper was proofread by the authors and then by a native speaker with a degree from the University of Michigan. In case he missed any mistakes/problems, he proofread it again this time.

2. The title has become complicated.

--A very good suggestion! We discussed and decided to modify the title to be “A Study of Chinese University Students’ English Learning Motivation, Anxiety, Use of English and English Achievement”.

3. In the conclusion, it was good to see added references to the role of VR in helping students learn languages. A suggestion is to add a couple of references to highlight the potential of VR based learning in other areas such as engineering learning, helping reduction of stuttering among students, etc. You can google VR and STEM learning, etc. or you can browse these downloadable papers which I use in my class related to cyber learning (any 2 papers is fine).

--Done as suggested in the last para. of Conclusion, highlighting the potential of VA in language learning.