An L-MOOC to Improve Communicative Competence: From Blended Learning to OERs in the University Classroom

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with a current and emerging topic relevant to CALL, with up-to-date and significant bibliography. The approach of the statistical study is adequate, as is the analysis of the results. 

There are, however, some shortcomings which should be solved before publication. The authors should clarify and deepen certain key aspects, as they provide some information related to theoretical aspects that are somewhat vague.

lines 56 - 58

The authors state that:

"The connectivist and behaviourist approaches of L-MOOCs make them an effective tool in the evolution of foreign language teaching methods, promoting new educational scenarios that naturally help the transition from more traditional approaches to more communicative ones." 

This categorical statement is striking, when, to date, there are very few, if not non-existent, LMOOCs with connectivist approaches. This section requires an in-depth study of the theoretical and methodological framework of LMOOCs with bibliographical contributions from authors, some of them already included in the references.

lines 65-70

It is somewhat contradictory to state that:

"In our research, it has also been essential to recover the concept of Open Educational Resources, OER [32, 33, 34] since our study goes beyond the validation of the L-MOOC and leads us to reflect on open learning, the educational value of online learning resources and the development of digital activities in language learning."

MOOCs have been defined as the natural evolution and latest development of OER, so the relationship between OER and MOOCs is one of evolution, something that is not apparent in the theoretical reflection of the authors. The information related to the methodological approach of the LMOOC is very vaguely presented in the paper. 

lines 326, 350-352

What is missing here is the process of adaptation that the LMOOC has undergone for its conversion to OER in this study. It is only mentioned, but the process is omitted, without which this evolution cannot be adequately understood to be assessed. Furthermore, the authors also talk about a formative evaluation process in LMOOC, but the aspects improved in the educational interventions are not specified either. The authors ought to rewrite here to better explain their research.

Conclusions

I was left with the question what is new? This is a very interesting project and an appropriate study. The authors should highlight the results obtained that can be extrapolated to other similar contexts and processes so that they can be replicated.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments. We consider them very useful to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please, find in the attachment specific answers to each individual comment. All the new or modified sentences, paragraphs, graphs, references, etc. have been highlighted in blue color in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study, but it is presented in an uneven way and it is not always easy to follow. It would also help to specify the terms of reference at the beginning (see further notes attached). Still, an original contribution, but it would be good to know more about the way this blended learning initiative, that maximised the integration of a MOOC into an existing curriculum because of the Covid 19 pandemic, was carried out and with what rationale. Literature on MOOC integration into existing curricula could also be added to the references (e.g.:  https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/2702)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please refer to my attachment. The text could benefit from a bit of restructuring and robust proof-reading, as there are weaknesses in its English.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her exhaustive review and his/her valuable comments. We consider them very useful to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please, find in the attachment specific answers to each individual comment. All the new or modified sentences, paragraphs, graphs, references, etc. have been highlighted in blue color in the revised manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I can see that many issues have been addressed and resolved, particularly in terms of the references quoted, but there still is a bit of work to do. nearly there. Will you acknowledge all participants and collaborators? I did not see an acknowledgement section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please refer to my edits attached