Correlation between Academic Achievement Results and Students’ Perceptions in Instant Response System-Based Language Learning Classes at the University

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I have to admit that when I read the title at first time, it was not clear for me. I wondered what is "Instant Response System-based Hindi Classes".  I did not know what is Hindi, so I wonder if it would be  better to say more generally Language Learning Classes... Probably this is a problematic motivation for the reader to keep reading the paper. 

2. The abstract is clear and well-structured. 

3. At the literature review I disagree with the presentation at the brackets of too many references (over than 3). It makes us have a feeling that there is so much work on this domain that I wonder about the rationality of the present work. In my opinion keep the most important publications for each important idea.

4. the posed research questions are too general. I do not believe that there is a fitting for all the subjects. I believe that it has to be posed with an indication to the learning of language (first, second or foreign)

5. the research method is clear

6. The specific study posed 3 research questions and not hypotheses. So the presentation of the results has to be in respective to those posed questions only. 

7. Discussion has to be related further with the theoretical framework

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, [Correlation Between Academic Achievement Results and Students’ Perceptions in Instant Response System-Based Language Learning Classes at the University]. We deeply appreciate the time and detailed guidance for your revision and have incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript to the best of our ability.

We have tried to revise the paper accordingly as you have pointed out and suggested as shown in a revised manuscript. For reference, my colleague has expressed full consent regarding the revision.

Following this letter are the reviewer comments with our responses and changes in italics, including how and where the text was modified. We have included everything you have written but numbered the comments and underlined crucial parts.

Attached to the e-mail are two MS Word files: one is a clean revised version that reflected all the changes (file name: education-3017250_revised), while the other displays all the changes made (file name: education-3017250_track changes) using the track change function of the MS Word. The changes discussed herein are based on the second file. However, the two are identical.

The manuscript has certainly benefited from the insightful reviews. We once again extend our deepest appreciation to the reviews.

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

We declare that we received funding for publication and the funding information has been included in the manuscript properly.

Please accept our kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject studied is not only interesting but also highly relevant. The theoretical and appropriate framework and the quantitative analysis of the data are commendable. However, to further enhance the scientific quality of this research, it would be essential to provide more details on the following points:

The quantitative analysis of the data is well explained. On the other hand, for interviews, explanations are required for the validity of the results, among other things, regarding the choice to carry out interviews with one male and one female student from each grade group.

The “Research Results and Discussion” section should report both the results arising from this research and those cited in this article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, [Correlation Between Academic Achievement Results and Students’ Perceptions in Instant Response System-Based Hindi Language Learning Classes at the University]. We deeply appreciate the time and detailed guidance for your revision and have incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript to the best of our ability.

We have tried to revise the paper accordingly as you have pointed out and suggested as shown in a revised manuscript. For reference, my colleague has expressed full consent regarding the revision.

Following this letter are the reviewer comments with our responses and changes in italics, including how and where the text was modified. We have included everything you have written but numbered the comments and underlined crucial parts.

Attached to the e-mail are two MS Word files: one is a clean revised version that reflected all the changes (file name: education-3017250_revised), while the other displays all the changes made (file name: education-3017250_track changes) using the track change function of the MS Word. The changes discussed herein are based on the second file. However, the two are identical.

The manuscript has certainly benefited from the insightful reviews. We once again extend our deepest appreciation to the reviews.

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

We declare that we received funding for publication and the funding information has been included in the manuscript properly.

Please accept our kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf