The Clash between CLIL and TELL: Effects and Potential Solutions of Adapting TELL for Online CLIL Teaching
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work discusses the perception of 20 teachers on the integrative CLIL and CALL learning. While I believe that the work has good potential, there are various areas that could be articulated better for the readers to understand the contributions of the authors’ work better:
While I appreciate that the authors attempted to provide some background and literature review on both CLIL and CALL, it appeared to me that they are pretty much decoupled from the rest of the article. For example, I would like to know how both the theoretical and practical aspect of CLIL and CALL have been implemented in the teaching during the current study, and this is important since it provides context to the research itself.
Furthermore, it may not be reasonable to expect all the readers to appreciate CLIL and CALL right from the onset. While I understand there might be constraints in the title length, I believe the two acronyms should be spelt out in full in the abstract, as well as what CLIL and CALL entails (in the context of this study) should be articulated right from the beginning in the introduction. I believe readers will benefit from a clear understanding of the background and context right from the beginning.
There are a few instances where statements were made without any support: for example, the claim that “English is high on the agenda of schools…” between lines 59 to 60, as well as the claim of “the phenomenon of online classrooms explosively expanding…” in lines 83 to 86, and the subsequent claim that “most teachers do not have enough time to modify their teaching methods…”. While the claims are likely correct, more should be unpacked to support the claim. For one, is the insufficient time to modify teachers’ teaching method a result of the onset of pandemic, or has it been a chronic issue well before the pandemic? On this, there has been numerous discussions and strategies implemented during the pandemic (I list two possible examples below):
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/5.0028641
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9766498
If what the authors are trying to say is the latter, then there should be relevant works to support the argument. I get the impression that in their work, the incorporation CALL to CLIL is a result of the pandemic. Either way, it should be the authors’ prerogative to explain it clearly to the authors.
Lastly, I reckon it will be important to provide more context on exactly what has been done by the teachers in incorporating CALL to CLIL, perhaps with some examples. This will be helpful for the readers to appreciate the rationale behind the each of the qualitative responses.
Author Response
We are very grateful to you for reviewing the paper so carefully. Please kindly see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you so much for your submission and there are some comments on your study as follows:
1. What your major arguments in this study?
2. What are your major research questions? the relations between these two questions that you mentioned.
3. You need add more recent 5 years publications on this topic
Author Response
Thank you a lot for reviewing the paper. Please kindly see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Although the topic of the paper seemed interesting, the way information is presented, the lack of information in other aspects, made it difficult to follow.
Firstly, the use of CALL as a term is a bit outdated. TELL is mostly used nowadays in order to reflect the use of digital media and communication. Your discussion of the benefits of CALL is a bit simplistic. There is an assumption that by simply using computers of digital media in class, a series of benefits accrue as if pedagogy or how the teacher integrates digital media in classroom practices does not matter. I disagree with this simplistic stance. I felt that a synthesis of literature of CALL and CLIL would have been better. You have two seperate literature reviews which take up too mauch space.
A detailed presentation of the CLIL context that you are investigating is absolutely necessary.
I felt that the research questions and the objectives need to come just before the research methods and not in the position they are now. I believe that the questionnaire investigated issues which are not related to the research questions and the interviews as well. The presentation of results is a bit scattered. You present the interview results in a very general and vague manner in 5.1 and then in detail in 5.3. The questionnaire results are very briefly presented and in a uncommon manner for the type of data. Indeed I thought the questionnaire results were simply glossed over- they are not used in the discussion of results. The presentation of the interview results is detailed but lacks quotations. The discussion of findings at the end focuses more on the interview results and the implications of the results seem to be very specific to the context and not generalisable to relevant to other contexts.
This paper seems to be a condensed version of a dissertation and I believe needs serious restructuring. More attention needs to be paid to the questionnaire results or take them out altogether and focus only on the interview findings. Less information in the literature review is needed, more studies on the use of technology in CLIL and certainly more information on the context.
Please see comments in the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are very grateful to you for reviewing the paper so carefully. Please kindly see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No questions on it and thank you so much for your revison.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been much improved. The comments have been taken into account and relative changes and additions have been made. I would aonly suggest that CLIL is mentioned in the abstract of the paper in the beginning. Wel done
