Using the Discord Application to Facilitate EFL Vocabulary Acquisition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very interesting and useful. I just have a few notes.

Page 2 lines 4-11. It would be nice to show this procedure with a simple graphical diagram.

Page 3 lines 12-19. Add a figure of Discord.

Page 3 line 29. Explain why exactly 40 students were selected?

Page 4 line 31. Do not write a link to the website, insert a number of the reference in the References. Links to the website are not written into scientific articles. Do the same in other cases.

Rename Chapter 6 Limitations to Limitations and Possibilities. Write down more possibilities for future studies. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your very helpful comments. We appreciate your time and your kind approach.

Below you can find the explanations of how the issues kindly mentioned by you were addressed:

1. We added a diagram to show how vocabulary skills are formed.
2. We added a figure of Discord.
3. As for the number of the participants – at first 40 students were selected because of the COVID-19 restrictions we still had to face when the experimental training began. After the paper was submitted, we have got more positive results about the use of Discord to facilitate vocabulary skills formation. This time 40 more first-year students majoring in Languages and Intercultural Communication took part in the experimental training. The conditions of the experiment were exactly the same. That is why we added our new findings and results to the present study.
4. We deleted all the links from the paper and inserted a number of the reference in the References instead.
5. As for Chapter 6 Limitations – we combined Chapter 5 Conclusion and Chapter 6 Limitations into one. We underlined the necessity of further research and added more possibilities for future studies.

Thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper addresses the question whether the pedagogical use of a digital application for both classroom and home-based activities can foster the acquisition and correct use of vocabulary among EFL learners. The study appropriately tests the above hypothesis by designing a pre-test and post-test experiment involving a control group and an experimental group. This experiment, which produces quantitative data, is enriched by the collection and analysis of qualitative data, namely spoken discourse freely produced by the study participants. This mixed-method investigation therefore provides complementary and corroborating evidence regarding the profitable use of ICT in language teaching. Finally, the interview data offers additional insights into the value of catering to students’ learning styles.

The Abstract accurately summarises the study, also providing information about the approach adopted.

The Introduction Section contextualises the study fairly well, although the sequencing of the paragraphs could be improved upon and not all the information relevant to it is presented here. I suggest touching on the topics covered in this order: why vocabulary acquisition is important, what it consists in, what challenges it involves; how vocabulary is usually taught; the role of ICT in language learning in general and in vocabulary teaching/learning in particular; previous pedagogical uses of Discord; the knowledge gap identified; and the research questions addressed. In particular, the knowledge gap should be clearly stated, and the research questions should be formulated as interrogative sentences. This would better motivate the study carried out. Given the present formulation, it sounds like the authors want to show that -- rather than check whether -- Discord is good for vocabulary teaching/learning.

The Methodology Section is clear and exhaustive, making the study fully replicable. Here, too, however, the sequencing of topics could be reconsidered – my suggestion is to consistently follow a chronological order. In addition, given that the author(s) used a lot of material in their course, but necessarily can only mention it or briefly exemplify it, I would suggest inserting a footnote specifying that/whether the material is available to interested readers upon request.

The quantitative results are clearly presented and accompanied by descriptive statistics; the qualitative results are convincingly exemplified and summarized. However, some of the information included in the Results Section should actually be moved to the Methodology Section.

I think that the Discussion Section makes some good points, but here too, the authors could re-arrange the order of their arguments – they could start with the first two conclusions drawn from the study before moving on to broader comments about the value of using Discord in language teaching/learning, and the role of ICT more generally. Also, the very interesting question raised about the role of ICT vs that of a teacher’s course design should be moved to the Conclusion.

I would combine the current Conclusion and Limitations Sections into one Conclusion Section, which I would end on a more positive note by hinting at possible research developments.

The exposition is mostly easy to follow, but some parts are redundant or verbose. There also appear to be recurrent difficulties in the use of the definite article. See the in-text comments.

All the publications mentioned in the body of the paper also appear in the References Section.

Although the amount of data considered is a bit limited, as openly stated in the Limitations Section, the study is original and solid, and delivers what it promises. After being proof-read/edited by an expert speaker, it can be re-submitted.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your very helpful comments. We do appreciate your time and your kind approach.  The in-text comments helped a lot.

Below you can find the explanations of how the issues kindly mentioned by you were addressed:

1. The Introduction. The sequencing of the paragraphs has been changed as suggested. We added the information about the previous pedagogical uses of Discord and underlined that the study aims to check it suitability in the domain of vocabulary teaching and learning thus identifying the knowledge gap. The research questions have also been reformulated as interrogative.
2. The Methodology Section.

2.1. Participants Section has been restructured to avoid the zig-zag pattern.

The information from the Results section indicated by the Reviewer has been moved to the Methodology section. For example, the paragraph describing how a Student Evaluation of Educational Quality questionnaire had been adopted.

Some more important changes connected with the number of the participants have been made. At first 40 students were selected because of the COVID-19 restrictions we still had to face when the experimental training began. After the paper was submitted, we have got more positive results about the use of Discord to facilitate vocabulary skills formation. This time 40 more first-year students majoring in Languages and Intercultural Communication took part in the experimental training. The conditions of the experiment were exactly the same. That is why we added our new findings and results to the present study.

3. The Discussion Section. The order of the arguments has been rearranged as suggested. The question raised about the role of ICT vs that of a teacher’s course design has been moved to the Conclusion.
4. The Conclusion Section has been combined with the Limitations Section. We tried to make it sound more positive and also added some more possibilities for future studies.

Thank you very much!

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, as the authors mentioned in the limitations section, the small sample size itself can weaken the findings and claims in this paper. However, I guess the authors also have qualitative data (i.e., comments and feedback from the participants). Thus, it would be desirable to integrate more qualitative data into their claims in a more systematic and broad way in order to strengthen their findings. Otherwise, this manuscript might not be strong enough to contribute to the field of the relevant fields.

Here are some minor comments

Page 2: Even though EFL and ICT are generally used in the field of language education, those terms should be fully introduced when they first appear in the manuscript.

Page 2: What is eLearning 4.0?

Page 6: The mean post-test score of Experimental and Control group was 25.15 and 21.10 with standard deviation of 1,496487 and 1.774082 respectively. : Please check the typo.

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your very helpful comments. We appreciate your time and your kind approach.

Below you can find the explanations of how the issues kindly mentioned by you were addressed:

1. EFL and ICT were fully introduced when they first appear in the manuscript.
2. We added a short explanation of what eLearning 4.0 is.
3. We added more qualitative data, i.e. feedback and quotations we got from the participants of the experimental group. We also added some information provided by the Server Stats Bot concerning the time spent by the student in Discord on a daily basis, etc.
4. Some more important changes connected with the number of the participants have been made. At first 40 students were selected because of the COVID-19 restrictions we still had to face when the experimental training began. After the paper was submitted, we have got more positive results about the use of Discord to facilitate vocabulary skills formation. This time 40 more first-year students majoring in Languages and Intercultural Communication took part in the experimental training. The conditions of the experiment were exactly the same. That is why we added our new findings and results to the present study.

Thank you!

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I guess the revised manuscript fully integrated all the concerns raised by both reviewers. In particular, the number of the participants is now big enough to support the claims and results by the author(s). Also some more qualitative data were also added to strengthen the claims. In this regard, I believe that the revised version of the manuscript is now ready for publication. Thank you.