Application of Student-Centered Learning in Improving Teaching English as a Foreign Language Students’ 21st-Century Skills Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. It has many positive aspects while it needs some more work to render it publishable in the journal. Minor language proofreading is required.
Abstract
- It’s important to refer that these are EFL students.
Introduction
- Page 2, line 54: What does “effective learning design mean”? I suggest changing this phrase into instructional design.
- In section 2, it’s important to check if the cited references relate to EFL or they are general.
- As I can read through section 2 and 3, it looks like information while more synthesis of the literature is required.
- Sometimes, the author states that many studies conclude that but it’s important to mention these studies (e.g., page 4, line 150). Citations are required here.
- How did the author develop Figure 1? No theoretical framework was provided to support this in the review of literature.
Method
- Page 5, line 183: Change mixed-mode to mixed-method.
- The validity of the instruments is not available. It’s important to report this.
- There is no ethical approval reported.
- Tables 1 and 2 don’t really refer to reliability, rather it refers to other statistical indices in the Cronbach’s alpha output, which are not really needed in this regard. Instead, the author should report the actual alpha level for each subscale and the total score.
- The scoring of the questionnaire is not clear. How does the author calculate the low and high scores on the questionnaire?
- Page 5, line 299: What does the author mean by ‘previous study’ here? This needs more clarification, and a citation is required here .
- There is no need to tables 1 and 2 because values can be grouped in one table.
Data Analysis
- Page 6, line 212: This section needs citations.
- How did the author obtain table 3. More clarification is needed.
- Page 7, line 246: Based on age’ is not clear. Rewrite the sentence to reflect the age levels of the participants.
Results:
- Page 9, line 262: These are four courses.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript needs proofreading.
Author Response
Comment 1. Abstract
It’s important to refer that these are EFL students
Response 1. has been revised in the Abstract to TEFL students.
Comment 2. Introduction
- Page 2, line 54: What does “effective learning design mean”? I suggest changing this phrase into instructional design.
Response 2. It has been revised. refer to line 62, page 2 and in some locations.
Comment 3- In section 2, it’s important to check if the cited references relateto EFL or they are general.
Comment 4- As I can read through sections 2 and 3, it looks like information while more synthesis of the literature is required.
Response 3 & 4: Some relevant references, more discussion and synthesis of the literature had been added related to TEFL and EFL in the section 2 and 3.
Comment 5 -Sometimes, the author states that many studies conclude that but it’s important to mention these studies (e.g., page 4, line150). Citations are required here.
Response 5. It has been revised, and citations added. Line 53
Comment 6- How did the author develop Figure 1? No theoretical framework was provided to support this in the review of literature.
Response 6. The theoretical framework is elaborated in sections 2 and 3. Figure 1 is a summary of sections 2 and 3.
Comment 7. Method - Page 5, line 183: Change mixed-mode to mixed-method.
- The validity of the instruments is not available. It’s important to report this.
- There is no ethical approval reported.
Response 7. Line 183, at revision version line 274 had been change to mixed quantitative and qualitative methods.
Ethical Approval is reported at the end of the manuscript.
Comment 8 - Tables 1 and 2 don’t really refer to reliability, rather it refers toot her statistical indices in the Cronbach’s alpha output, which are not really needed in this regard. Instead, the author should report the actual alpha level for each subscale and the total score.
Response 8. I had added more discussion about the reliability. I think both tables 1 and 2 are still needed. It reports Cronbach Alpha and corrected item correlation (r values) in Overall, scale and subscale. As my understanding cronbach alpha value is used as an indicator of reliability in overall, scale and sub-scale, while corrected item correlation (r values) refers to convergent validity.
Comment 9. The scoring of the questionnaire is not clear. How does the author calculate the low and high scores on the questionnaire?
Response 9. It explained in Table 3. The interpretation of mean scores. And referring sentence had been added in part. 5.2 line 361-363.
Comment 10. Page 5, line 199: What does the author mean by ‘previous study’ here? This needs more clarification, and a citation is required here .
Response 10. Explanation and citation related to 'previous study had been added at page 6, line 299-301
Comment 11. There is no need to tables 1 and 2 because values can be grouped in one table.
Response 11. It had been answered in response 8.
Comment 12 Data Analysis. Page 6, line 212: This section needs citations.
Response 12. citation and justification had been added page 8, part 4.2 line 331-333
Comment 13. How did the author obtain table 3. More clarification is needed.
Response 13. The explanation of Table 3 has been added to 311-312.
Comment 14. Page 7, line 246: Based on age’ is not clear. Rewrite the sentence to reflect the age levels of the participants.
Response 14. It has been revised to page 7. line 281.
Comment 15. Results
Page 9, line 262: These are four courses.
Response 15: Revised. page 11, line 357
Comment 16: The manuscript needs proofreading.
Response 16: The manuscript has not yet been sent to a professional editor. After getting a second feedback from the reviewer or journal editor, it will be sent to a professional English editor.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper seeks to investigate student-centered learning and the enhancement of students’ 21st century skills performance based on data collected from an English Department at an Indonesian University. Although I can see the author(s) intentions, there are several points which should have been addressed in the paper. The research questions should have been clearly presented in a relevant section (e.g. prior to method or rather methodology). The discussion in each section should have been clearly presented (and not mixed with i.e., results), as this makes it hard for the reader to follow it. Sections 6 and 7 could have appeared in a single section.
The paper needs to be proof-read (professionally): indicatively: l22-24: rephrase needed,
l26: application developer need, l28: user … are expected
The references (in the text and in the references section) should have been double checked. Indicative issues: Hadiyanto et al. 2021 (l21), Kovalevksy 2020 (l21) -in this case in the text there is no , between the name and the year. Tan 2017, Anders et al 2016. Fisher and Hanze (i.e., spelling, year)
l11: full form of CGPA
21st: superscript or not? same form throughout the paper
l21: help them become à who?
l22: changes à which ones?
l26: is more crucial à than what?
introduction: the organisation of the paper should have been included
section 2: why are these skills only relevant to English education students? The discussion seems to be rather general
sections 2 and 3: the discussion should be focused on the topic of the section. As it stands, it seems to be rather mixed with your research and/or the results.
l154-155: there is a . and then (..)
section 3.4: the title does not seem to be indicative of the content
l169: why does the reference appear in red?
Figure 1: Is it the author(s)’ proposal? Is it a summary of the literature review? Character: why only honesty? course skills- there is a .
l176: figure 1 seeks : rephrase
l179: GL, IL, OL. Previously we had GLM, ILM, OLM. Why OLM (l142) when online learning activities?
section 3: too many repetitions
section 4: from quantitative information, we go to qualitative and then back to quantitative. For qualitative additional information should have been provided.
l191-192: rephrase
l198: table 4.1 does not exist in the text
section 4.1 instrumentation + l198: “shows the course design results”. Throughout the paper the information offered is mixed up. e.g., literature review and results, here instrumentation and results. It is not easy for the reader to follow the discussion.
table 1 and 2: based on the questionnaire? the questionnaire should have been included in an appendix or the questions should have been provided in the text. more information about the questionnaire is needed (i.e., number of items). Why are these results presented in this section?
section 4.2: l212-225: could this information have been included in the instrumentation, for example?
table 3: the mean scores refer to..? why do they appear in this section?
l226/l231: first stage/second stage à more explicit explanation
l227: two classes à meaning?
l233: CGPA à how is this linked to the discussion in section 4.3?
section 4.2.: I can’t follow the discussion. Data analysis is followed by demographics and then findings.
l262: Crs2 à no space
l270: where are these numbers based on? on the questionnaire responses?
l271: In short, The …
l272-272: I cannot see the connection
section 5.3: the scores (table 5 and 6) refer to the quantitative analysis, to the questionnaire?
table 6: fix last column. where is the discussion of this table in the text?
tables 7 and 8: the results need to be discussed (further) in the text
table 8 (same in table 10): why “graduates” in this table and not “students”?
l333: 21st century skills performance: where is it based on?
l334: the result is not based on the value à rephrase
table 11: what does it show? there is no discussion
l356: e toward
l361: no table 15 (as mentioned in text)
l380: the course design allows?
l401-403: I cannot follow the discussion
l459: end of semester à I might have missed this point, but where it is shown in the results?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease see above
Author Response
Comment 1. The paper needs to be proof-read (professionally): indicatively:l22-24: rephrase needed,
Response 1: The paper will be sent to professional editing after the second round of reviewers. At this stage, we focus on content revision. Many paragraphs and sentences have been rephrased and improved, such as line 22-26, 34-43 and in some places in the paper.
Comment 2. l26: application developer need, l28: user … are expected.
Response 2. Both sentences had been rephrased and replaced with new sentences.
Comment 3. The references (in the text and in the references section) should have been double-checked. Indicative issues: Hadiyanto et al.2021 (l21), Kovalevksy 2020 (l21) -in this case in the text there is no , between the name and the year. Tan 2017, Anders et al2016. Fisher and Hanze (i.e., spelling, year)
Response 3. The citations and references have been fixed. Lines 27-28, and 53-54
Comment 4 l11: full form of CGPA
Response 4: It is written in full form already in the abstract.
Comment 4: 21st: superscript or not? same form throughout the paper
Response 4: 21st-century skills. I had been fixed.
Comment 5. l21: help them become a who?
Response 5. l21-22 had been rephrased.
Comment 6. l22: changes à which ones?
Comment 7. l26: is more crucial à than what?
Response 6 & 7: l22 to l26 had been revised.
Comment 8: introduction: the organization of the paper should have been included
Response 8: added on page 2, l68
Comment 9: section 2: why are these skills only relevant to English education students? The discussion seems to be rather general
Response 9: Theoretical issues and discussion related to TEFL were added to sections 2 and 3.
Comment 10: Sections 2 and 3: The discussion should be focused on the section's topic. As it stands, it seems rather mixed with your research and/or the results.
Response 10: The discussion for sections 2 and 3 has been revised significantly.
Comment 11: l154-155: there is a . and then (..)
Response 11: It was fixed.
Comment 12: section 3.4: the title does not seem to be indicative of the content
Response 12: Section had been omitted, because include at previous section.
Comment 13; l169: why does the reference appear in red?
Response 13: It was fixed.
Comment 14: Figure 1: Is it the author(s)’ proposal? Is it a summary of the literature review? Character: why only honesty? course skills-there is a .
Comment 15: l176: figure 1 seeks : rephrase
Response 14 and 15: Discussion and description of Figure 1 have been added.
Comment 15 l179: GL, IL, OL. Previously we had GLM, ILM, OLM. Why OLM(l142) when online learning activities?
Response 15: We have revised it and become consistent with the abbreviations GLM, ILM, and OLM.
Comment 16: section 3: too many repetitions.
Response 16: We have omitted some repetitions and rephrased them.
Comment 17. section 4: from quantitative information, we go to qualitative and then back to quantitative. For qualitative additional information should have been provided.
Response 17. Section 4 had been restructured, and the discussion and justification of quantitative and qualitative methods and analyses had been added. Page 7-9
Comment 18: l191-192: rephrase.
Response 18: It has been rephrased line 277-278
Comment 19: l198: table 4.1 does not exist in the text
Response 18: This has been fixed.
Comment 19: section 4.1 instrumentation + l198: “shows the course designresults”. Throughout the paper the information offered is mixed up. e.g., literature review and results, here instrumentation and results. It is not easy for the reader to follow the discussion. table 1 and 2: based on the questionnaire?
Response 19: Section 4 is a method. It also reports the reliability and validity of the process and result. The reliability and validity result as displayed in Table 1 and 2 are needed as evident that the instruments are appropriate and measured what supposed to measure. On the Other hand, The finding in section 5 is not violated due to unreliable and invalidated instruments. This section has been re-structured and rephrased.
Comment 20: the questionnaire should have been included in an appendix, or the questions should have been provided in the text. more information about the questionnaire is needed (i.e., the number of items). Why are these results presented in this section?
Response 20: The questionnaire has been attached to this submission of the revised manuscript.
Comment 21. section 4.2: l212-225: could this information have been included in the instrumentation, for example? table 3: the mean scores refer to..? why do they appear in this section?
Response 21: Additional explanation and justification for Table 3 have been added in section 4.1 And also in section 5.2.
Comment 22. l226/l231: first stage/second stage àmore explicit explanation.
l227: two classes à meaning?
Response 22. It had been reprhased and explained line 308-312.
Comment 23. l233: CGPA à how is this linked to the discussion in section 4.3?
section 4.2.: I can’t follow the discussion. Data analysis is followed by demographics and then findings.
Response 23. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 have been restructured and revised to be understood by readers. Demographic had been replaced appropriately, line 280-282
Comment 24. l262: Crs2 à no space
Response 24. It has been fixed. line 357
Comment 25. l270: where are these numbers based on? on the questionnaireresponses?
l271: In short, The …
Response 25. Explanation of section 5.2 had been revised. Connection Table 3 and Table 5 and 6 also has been explained.
Comment 26 l272-272: I cannot see the connection
Response 26. The sentence had been rephrased. Line 368 and 370.
Comment 27. section 5.3: the scores (table 5 and 6) refer to the quantitativeanalysis, to the questionnaire?
Response 27. Yes table 5 and 6 are the mean scores of students' responses in the questionnaire. Discussion had been revised.
Comment 28. table 6: fix last column. where is the discussion of this table inthe text?
Response 28: Table 6 has been fixed. The discussion of the table had been provided in Line 373-378.
Comment 29: tables 7 and 8: the results need to be discussed (further) in the text.
Response 29: More discussion of table 7 and 8 had been provided.
Comment 30 table 8 (same in table 10): why “graduates” in this table and not“students”?
l333: 21.
Response 30. It has been edit.
Comment 31 century skills performance: where is it based on?
Response 31. We have reported above. Table 3.
Comment 32: l334: the result is not based on the value à rephrase
Response 32: Rephrased 442-445.
Comment 33: table 11: what does it show? there is no discussion
l356: e toward
Response 33: More discussion about Table 11 was added and mistyping was fixed.
Comment 34: l361: no table 15 (as mentioned in text)
l380: the course design allows?
Response 34: fixed line 466, and 492-493
Comment 35: l401-403: I cannot follow the discussion
Response 35: the sentence rvised line 514-515
Comment 36: l459: end of semester à
I might have missed this point, but whereit is shown in the results?.
Response 36: It had been revised, line 572-572
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author(s),
Thank you for the revised version of the paper. There are still points which need to be addressed. Most importantly, the papers need to be proof-read professionally (in terms of language use, formatting, stylistics). The points about references -mentioned in the following lines- are only indicative. A thorough check and the corresponding changes need to be made througout the text (main body/references section).
l4: TEFL give the full form and then (). When TEFL appears for the first time in the paper (not in the abstract), please do the same thing.
l12: CGPA when it also appears for the first time in the paper (not just in the abstract), please give the full form.
l27-28: check/change punctuation marks in the references in the ()
l19-20/l23-24/l29-30: repetition
l36/l53-54: check punctuation marks and brackets in the references. Please double check all references as they appear in the text and the form they are given in (punctuation marks, brackets) throughout the text and the references section. Ιn works with two authors use “and” or “&” throughout the paper. Also in works with three authors check the guidelines if you need to use “et al.” and make any necessary changes in the text.
l73: “method is explained”. The paper needs to be proof-read. l154. These are only indicative examples.
l108: check punctuation/space after Kazemi
l119: check double spacing (throughout the paper)
l132: Fischer, and Hänze: 2020 or 2019? and spelling
l589: Fischer, and Hänze there is no year
l264: The concept of students' 21st-century skills practices in the course design is summarized in Figure 1. The figureFigure 1. Development of EFL students' 21st: proof read. Also there is no need to include the title of the figure in the discussion.
Figure 1: It is still not clear whether the information presented in the figure is the author(s)’ proposal or not. Please clarify this point.
Check through the paper the use of TEFL/ELF. Is it TEFL students or EFL students?
l279: no brackets are needed for the reference
l391: font size?
l523-524: check use of punctuation marks
l555: check use of punctuation marks and “and” or “&” for references with two authors
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe paper needs to be proof-read professionally.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the insightful evaluation and detailed corrections in the first and second rounds of review. The paper has been proofread; the certificate is attached.
Comments 1: TEFL give the full form and then (). When TEFL appears for the first time in the paper (not in the abstract), please do the same thing.
Response 1. l4:It had been fixed and consistently TEFL used in the paper. L4
Comments 2. l12: When CGPA also appears for the first time in the paper (not just in the abstract), please provide the full form.
Response 2. It has been fixed. L254
Comments 3. l27-28: check/change punctuation marks in the references in the()
Response 3. All punctuation mistakes have been corrected, along with proofreading.
Comments 4. l19-20/l23-24/l29-30: repetition.
Response 4. The first and second paragraphs of the introduction have been revised totally. L19-33
Comments 5: l36/l53-54: check punctuation marks and brackets in the references. Please double-check all references as they appear in the text and the form they are given in (punctuation marks,brackets) throughout the text and the references section. In works with two authors use “and” or “&” throughout the paper.Also in works with three authors check the guidelines if you needto use “et al.” and make any necessary changes in the text.
Response 5: Punctuation marks, brackets, and the usage of and or &, and et al.. Have been rechecked and fixed in the whole text.
Comment 6 : l73: “method is explained”. The paper needs to be proof-read
Response 6: It has been paraphrased L61-62. The paper had been proofread by a professional language editor.
Comment 7: l154. These are only indicative examples.
Response 7: It has also been fixed in the whole text.
Comment 8, 9: l108: check punctuation/space after Kazemi
l119: check double spacing (throughout the paper)
Response 8,9: Punctuation and double spacing had been rechecked for whole text.
Comment: 10, 11. l132: Fischer, and Hänze: 2020 or 2019? and spelling
l589: Fischer, and Hänze there is no year.
Response 10-11: Year and spelling had been fixed in all text. example: L43, 114
Comment 12: l264: The concept of students' 21st-century skills practices in thecourse design is summarized in Figure 1. The figure
Figure 1. Development of EFL students' 21 : proofread. Also there is no need to include the title of the figure in the discussion.
Figure 1: It is still not clear whether the information presented inthe figure is the author(s)’ proposal or not. Please clarify this point.
Response 13: The information had been added, L235-237.
Commnet: 14. Check through the paper the use of TEFL/ELF. Is it TEFL students or EFL students?
Response 14: The use of TEFL had been applied in all texts.
Comment 15:
l279: no brackets are needed for the reference
l391: font size?
l523-524: check the use of punctuation marks
l555: check use of punctuation marks and “and” or “&” for references with two authors
Comment 15: It had been recheck in all text. It had been sent to proofreader.
