Did COVID-19 Put Language Certificate Acquisition on Hold? Uptake and Outcomes of Language Training amongst Refugees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting paper that  draws on large-scale population data to assess whether changes in language programme uptake and outcomes dur- 68 ing the covid-19 pandemic differ depending on refugees’ age at arrival, level of education, 69 and gender. The authors provide novel information on refugee subgroups’ vulnerability to covid-19 related complications in the acquisition of language credentials.

 

Both the introduction, the theoretical framework and the analysis are very well explained. Also the data and methods.  I am not an expert in quantitative method, however I find that is wll explained and detailed in the analysis. 

 

I modestly consider that the paper may be published in this current form. 

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the fact that our work was well-received and is considered apt for publication in this journal. We would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to read the manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A strong contribution to the literature on adult ed participation among  refugee/migrant communities; the post-pandemic perspective is critical to our collective understanding of how to improve and sync up policies  across sectors: public health, adult ed education, immigration.

I recommend two areas of (related) substantive revision: the need to clarify how "language credentials", and related terms, such as "fluency" (line 150), "proficiency".  The paper mentions CEFR in the literatue review, but the methods section does not provide a clear explanation of the dependent variable used to measure language outcomes.  Chiswick and Miller (2021) used a "language practice" variable.  This study seems to rely on changes in CEFR level as the marker of 'language credentials', and if that's the case, that variable needs its own paragraph in the methods section.  

From an applied linguistics perspsective, credentials, proficiency, fluency, language practice, are not interchangeable terms, so I would strongly encourage a clearer explication. Part of this is a clearer explanation of what the CEFR framework is: perhaps put the levels in an appendix, in addition to clearly operationalizing the dependent variable in the description of the logit regression models in the methods section.

To promote better cross-disciplinary knowledge building, I also recommend reviewing the use of the word 'acquisition' throughout this paper.  Please consider acknowledging the extensive applied linguistics research/theoretical work that tests assumptions about acquisition as a psychological/cognitive process, presumed to reside in the mind of the individual, versus a socio-cognitive view that regards acquisition in terms of increasing meaningful participation in the world.  (Clare Kramsch; Dwigh Atkinson; James Lantolf; search term: social turn in second language acquisition)

Thank you for the opportunity to read your work.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A few minor recommendations:

1.  A general comment: the reliance on the passive tense made some sections harder to digest. Consider switching to active voice, or at least balancing the use of both active and passive, may improve the flow of the prose:   just one example, "the widely adopted three-pillar theoretical framework of language acquisition is used" >> "we use the widely adopted three-pillar".  

2.  Check capitalization: covid, COVID, Covid are all used

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf