Sustainability of the Belt and Road Initiative: An Integrated, Conceptual Framework for Instructional Communication in China’s Universities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Subject: The subject that authors chose is not an original one, even though they try to build a new conceptual framework for enhancing instructional communication in the classroom for international students in China’s Higher Education Institutions. Besides, the subject is relevant and new for China nowadays. However, there is a practical approach of the theory, to sustaining China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) by enhancing instructional communication, Both, the conceptual framework and the contributions to BRI have yet to be confirmed empirically, as it is recognized by the authors. The combination of two existent instructional communication models and two intercultural sensitivity models has got a coherent new framework.

 

Given the emphasis on the cultural characteristics of international students, it would be desirable a more complete approach of the concept, which is very brief developed.

 

Materials and methods: the theories used for building the new framework are very well described and analyzed. However, in methodological terms, it is suggested just a paragraph that explains how is the rationale for building this new framework, and the reasons for that.

 

Results and discussion: the discussion provided in paragraph 5 is relevant to understand the scope of the new framework (first, second, and third-order constructs).

 

Conclusions: some parts of the text are reproduced exactly in the conclusions, with no perceived purpose. It would be preferable an own synthesis. Conclusions include a panoply of measures derived from the conceptual framework. They are very well supported by this framework. However, the limits of the conceptual framework may be highlighted a little more. Future research lines are not very clear.

 

The references are relevant and adequate.

 

 

Minor correction of the English language:

Lines: 24.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS; AUTHOR DISPOSITIONS

Review Report Form 1

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“The whole piece is somewhat patchy especially the earlier parts. The entire piece needs to be much more coherent.  the data/evidences need to be explained more and much more justified.”  

 

Author Disposition

 

Several changes were made upfront to address the patchiness of our earlier submission.

 

First, Section 1, the introduction, which is now positioned after the three epigraphs, offers and intersection between higher education and the Belt and Road Initiative.

 

Second, the preceding is followed quickly by the twofold purpose of this article.

 

Third, we offer three reasons for our focus on China’s higher education. 

 

This sequencing, we hope, will encourage an engaging reading of our work.

 

In Section 2, a detailed significance of our integrated conceptual framework follows.

 

In Section 3, we present a two-pronged theoretical framework, which is a logical flow from the significance of our integrated framework. 

 

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“Often the authors make some over-generalized comments about things especially about China's higher education system, without fully understanding that the system is multifaced and complex.”

 

Author Disposition

 

It is clear from lines 532-545 that there is no question about the multifaceted characteristics of China’s universities.  While one size does not fit all instructionally,  we acknowledge the similarities of a goodly number of them.  Granted, Westlake University, in Hangzhou, is a standout.  

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 “B & R and other parts need to be linked together much more closely. As it stands now, they are quite separated.”

 

 Author Disposition

 

The linking has been more closely accomplished from the get-go—that is, right from Section 1, Introduction, line 47.  That link is apparent through much the article.

 

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“Throughout the piece there are errors of various sorts. For instance, note 21, "jingwei" should be a give name, not a surname.”

 

Author Disposition

 

This has been verified.  The surname is Jingwei; the given name is Tang.

 

 

###

Reviewer 2 Report

This work needs to be improved. To help the authors to do so, I have the following suggestions:

the whole piece is somewhat patchy especially the earlier parts. The entire piece needs to be much more coherent.  the data/evidences need to be explained more and much more justified.  often the authors make some over-generalized comments about things especially about China's higher education system, without fully understanding that the system is multifaced and complex B & R and other parts need to be linked together much more closely. As it stands now, they are quite separated. Throughout the piece there are errors of various sorts. For instance, note 21, "jingwei" should be a give name, not a surname.

Author Response

REVIEWER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS; AUTHOR DISPOSITIONS

Review Report Form 2

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“I think that the authors need to extend the appeal of this theoretical discussion to the broader international research community. How does the relevant discussion relate to the needs or knowledge gaps in the relevant disciplinary research? I am not particularly convinced by the need argument in the very beginning.”

 

Author Disposition

The authors have significantly expanded the theoretical discussion in different sections to present a rationale for this present study.

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“The authors also need to draw on relevant studies on internationalization of higher education in particular with regard to the use of Chinese or English as medium of instruction. In the last few years, a lot of studies have been published on the topic in journals such as International Journal of Bilingual education and bilingualism, Studies in higher education, Higher education and even in English Today. It is necessary for the authors to consider the relevant findings reported in these studies.”

Author Disposition

The authors have added recent relevant studies as per reviewers’ suggestions, seven new relevant studies were added to justify the significance of present study and also reported the key findings of one of the studies in lines 159-172.

 

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 “The authors need to evaluate in what sense the proposed models is a good one (in particular considering highlighting its contextual embeddedness, appropriateness and sustainability.  The manuscript needs to conclude a stronger message for readers to take home to inform their practice and research. What do the authors expect its readers to act upon it?”

Author Disposition

The authors addressed the reviewer’s concern in lines 420-425. Lines 453-465 are added to further strengthen the conclusion part.

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“I would definitely like to see some empirical attempt to evaluate the model and show how it can work. But I understand that this is not something that the authors are ready to offer. I defer to the editors' professional judgement with regard to this issue.” 

Author Disposition

 

We do agree with reviewer that this paper is a conceptual one and we couldn’t offer empirical findings, but in future, we will test this model empirically.

###

Reviewer 3 Report

I think that the authors need to extend the appeal of this theoretical discussion to the broader international research community. How does the relevant discussion relate to the needs or knowledge gaps in the relevant disciplinary research? I am not particularly convinced by the need argument in the very begining. The authors also need to draw on relevant studies on internationalization of higher education in particular with regard to the use of Chinese or English as medium of instruction. In the last few years, a lot of studies have been published on the topic in journals such as International Journal of Bilingual education and bilingualism, Studies in higher education, Higher education and even in English Today. It is necessary for the authors to consider the relevant findings reported in these studies.  The authors need to evaluate in what sense the proposed models is a good one (in particular considering highlighting its contextual embeddness, appropriateness and sustainability.  The manuscript needs to conclude a stronger message for readers to take home to inform their practice and research. What do the authors expect its readers to act upon it? I would definitely like to see some empirical attempt to evaluate the model and show how it can work. But I understand that this is not something that the authors are ready to offer. I defer to the editors' professional judgement with regard to this issue. 

Other than the above mentioned concerns, I think that this is a generally well written and interesting study with some significant impact on research and practice (at least potential)/.

Author Response

REVIEWER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS; AUTHOR DISPOSITIONS

Review Report Form 3

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“I think that the authors need to extend the appeal of this theoretical discussion to the broader international research community. How does the relevant discussion relate to the needs or knowledge gaps in the relevant disciplinary research? I am not particularly convinced by the need argument in the very beginning.”

 

Author Disposition

The authors have significantly expanded the theoretical discussion in different sections to present a rationale for this present study.

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“The authors also need to draw on relevant studies on internationalization of higher education in particular with regard to the use of Chinese or English as medium of instruction. In the last few years, a lot of studies have been published on the topic in journals such as International Journal of Bilingual education and bilingualism, Studies in higher education, Higher education and even in English Today. It is necessary for the authors to consider the relevant findings reported in these studies.”

Author Disposition

The authors have added recent relevant studies as per reviewers’ suggestions, seven new relevant studies were added to justify the significance of present study and also reported the key findings of one of the studies in lines 159-172.

 

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 “The authors need to evaluate in what sense the proposed models is a good one (in particular considering highlighting its contextual embeddedness, appropriateness and sustainability.  The manuscript needs to conclude a stronger message for readers to take home to inform their practice and research. What do the authors expect its readers to act upon it?”

Author Disposition

The authors addressed the reviewer’s concern in lines 420-425. Lines 453-465 are added to further strengthen the conclusion part.

Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“I would definitely like to see some empirical attempt to evaluate the model and show how it can work. But I understand that this is not something that the authors are ready to offer. I defer to the editors' professional judgement with regard to this issue.” 

Author Disposition

 

We do agree with reviewer that this paper is a conceptual one and we couldn’t offer empirical findings, but in future, we will test this model empirically.

###

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have seen the changes made by the authors. I appreciate their attitude and hard work.

Author Response

EDITORIAL QUERIES AND AUTHOR DISPOSITIONS

Editorial Query, Line 18, Yellow Sticker 1: “Do you mean international students?”

Author Disposition

 

Yes.  “International” has been added to the sentence.

Editorial Query, Line 25, Yellow Sticker 2: “Please name the three constructs here.”

Author Disposition

 

The three constructs have been added after the colon.

Editorial Query, Line 47, Yellow Sticker 3: “You need to clarify the research gap that you have identified and explicitly  raise your research question in the Introduction.  I see the research gap is justified in the next section, but you'd better mention the research gap at the outset.”

Author Disposition

 

The research gap is clarified upfront in Section 1, “Introduction,” starting with “Such a focus departs from the common research emphasis on the teacher’s communication skills . . . ”

Editorial Query, Line 135, Yellow Sticker 4: “I suggest to add a brief introduction of the structure of the paper here.”

Author Disposition

 

That structure is now outlined in the last paragraph of Section 1, “Introduction.”

Editorial Query, Line 136, Yellow Sticker 5: “I suggest to change to the title of the section to make the meaning clearer. For instance, it can be the urgent needs for developing an analytical framework for understanding instructional communications between international students and Chines faculty members in China's universities.”

Author Disposition

 

The title of this section now reads as “Instructional Communication: Cultural Underpinnings and Classroom Challenges,” which is more robustly aligned with the content of Section 2.   

Editorial Query, Line 212, Yellow Sticker 6: “It is a bit abrupt to appear the Theoretical framework I here. Before that I think it would be helpful for readers if you can add a small explanation of our logics of developing an integrated analytical framework.  Here the relations between the ‘Theoretical Framework I’, ‘Theoretical Framework II’ and ‘An Instructional Communication Framework...’ will be presented.”

Author Disposition

That transition and explanation are provided in the last paragraph of Section 2.

 

###

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf