Sustaining Formal and Informal English Language Learning through Social Networking Sites (SNS): A Systematic Review (2018–2022)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a useful review of literature about the frequency and effectiveness of social networking sites (SNS) in advancing education in second language development. Their approach to selection of references and to thematic analysis of their content is logical and clearly presented.  However, the paper is difficult to read for several reasons:

1) Overly elaborated language: Too many sentences are introduced with phrases such as However...,nevertheless..., on the other hand...; statements throughout the paper are unnecessarily redundant, often opening paragraphs with two versions of saying the same thing.  

2) Results appearing in the Discussion section.  For example, lines 261-273 report findings of content in articles related to formal learning. The lines following, 274-279 are appropriate for Discussion.  Similarly, lines 295-298 report findings about enhancing English language skills; lines 299-302 Discuss that.  Lines 315-318 are also Results and belong in the previous section.

Table 3 and 4 could be combined and simplified. First, shorten the description of findings for each article. The descriptions are useful but do not need a lead in such as "it is reported" or "the findings reveal/ suggest/ indicate".  Just state what the findings were. Table 3 would be easier to follow if there were a logical organization presented and Table 4 appears to present such an organization. The result would be a single table organized into three sections, one of studies related to Formal Learning, one to Informal Learning, and one to Unspecified learning approaches. 

Section 5.3 begins with several statements that are difficult to understand (lines 333-338). Even after several readings, I am unclear what the authors are trying to say.  The use of the phrase "negative learning growth" requires definition, if in fact such a thing exists.   I was not able to make sense of the opening paragraph to Limitations and Recommendations either. Are the authors trying to say that the limitations of this study are attributed to both the nature of the methodology and to variations in study groups reported by the articles? Then just say so, in a single sentence and follow with discussion of each category. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Social networking websites are places where people may electronically interact with one another and share their feelings, thoughts, and emotions as well as their everyday activities, likes, and dislikes. According to the frequency of user usage, Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, and Google+ are the most popular SNS. Social networking services promote human unity by highlighting similar interests. And in this paper, the authors aimed to make a systematic review by analyzing the recent findings regarding the integration of social networking sites into English language learning in both formal and informal learning contexts. For this aim, they investigated two different databases: the Web of Science (WoS) and the Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC).

The topic is interesting and related to the journal.

However, to accept it for publishing, the author needed to make some corrections to it as follows.

Firstly,

According to https://csur.acm.org/editorial_charter.cfm, a survey article "assumes a general knowledge of the area; it emphasizes the classification of the existing literature, developing a perspective on the area, and evaluating"; and it should supply "the basic knowledge to enable new researchers to enter the area, current researchers to continue developments, and practitioners to apply the results." However, in my opinion, the paper in its current form does not satisfy the conditions that should characterize a good survey. 

Although the paper has a good level of English and some valuable deductions, I suggest the authors add some additional classifications of the papers in the literature.

The authors can use some or all of the following types of comparison.

I want to see the effect of different social networking sites. (as a comparison with some numerics)

such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Tumblr, etc.

What is the effect of SNS on writing, listening, speaking, and reading?

I want to see the  visiting frequency of social networking websites!

Effect of sex!

etc.

Secondly,

The authors should be careful about the use of English.. I have listed some as follows.

SNS in the English language learning--SNS in  English language learning

SNS is favoured for different kinds of application in--SNS is favoured for different kinds of applications in

Incremental progress in one field most often will trigger an equal reaction--Incremental progress in one field most often triggers an equal reaction

Ever since a decade ago, societies could witness--Ever since a decade ago, societies have witnessed

their users which continue to grow steadily over the last ten years --their users, which have continued to grow steadily over the last ten years 

and naturally language learning as a whole.--and natural language learning as a whole.

 subdivided into two forms of learning process namely-- subdivided into two forms of learning processes namely

 the shift in education standards has negatively affected learners’ interest and drive to--the shift in education standards has negatively affected learners’ interest and drives to

 It is divided into four stages, known as identification, screening, eligi bility and included.--It is divided into four stages, known as identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion.

 learning activities besides assisting students who felt more comfortable--learning activities besides assisting students who feel more comfortable

 where they openly discussed thoughts--where they openly discussed their thoughts

 Meanwhile, a third of the articles reviewed have not specified any SNS platform in the research,--??

 the platforms with the least number of articles documenting its versatility--the platforms with the least number of articles documenting their versatility

 technological gap between the younger and older generation --technological gap between the younger and older generations

 the integration of SNS in their life whether--the integration of SNS into their lives whether

  to encourage an ever-improving English proficient society--??

  Malaysia is undoubtedly capable to pioneer this motion--Malaysia is undoubtedly capable of pioneering this motion

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

While still rather verbose for my American preferences, the revision demonstrates a commendable amount of revision work.  The clarity is improved and as a result, the results and their implications are clearer to the readers.  The additional content provided in text and especially in the tables is very much appreciated.  This is a good article. To be an Excellent article, the authors could review once more with an eye to clarity and elimination of redundancies, but it is acceptable as written.