Instructional Design of an Integrative Online Business English Course for Master’s Students of a Technical University

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

wider relevance, transferability and longevity need to be explored and articulated, otherwise a good abstract and outline; that might also apply in thinking about the wider context (the infrastructure, demographics, regulation et etc of HE in other countries  and how is it relevant to other subjects); also a more explicit claim to originality and significance front-and-centre always helps. There might be some instructive distinctions between learning design and instructional design. For any qualitative data gathering i always ask about the trustworthiness or performnativity of the respondents (how did they want to present themselves, can we corroborate their responses, how sensitive to their answers were the findings and the conclusions etc etc). Could probably be slightly more succinct, and perhaps some data moved to appendices. In terms of originality, any unexpected or counter intuitive findings would be indicative and useful and stimulating

Author Response

 

Dear sir/madam,

We are really grateful for the response you have given to our article. We paid careful attention to all your comments that may improve the paper.

Wider relevance of our research probably lies in the application of an online course in asynchronous learning and it can be used as a full-fledged online course.

It also includes exposure into professional scenarios, learners’ reflection, multiple instruments encouraging learners’ cognitive activity and performance, and an opportunity to apply the knowledge to actual performance rather than summative assessment. The authors see a solution in a special instructional design based on the integration of traditional teaching approaches in offline learning, information technology, and elements of infotainment and edutainment.

Our longitude observations and empirical research let us identify the gap between what master’s students expect to do in English in their future professional life, what they learn to do in English within their offline Business English course, and specify the needs of our target audience. We have carried a series of surveys among 60 master’s students studying technical disciplines at Saint Petersburg Mining University to find out their expectations of their English language competences in their future professional life. Analytical and descriptive methods helped us conduct a comparative analysis of existing online Business English courses, a target audience analysis, and a needs analysis. In addition, we used a focus group to test some of the modules of the integrative course that we are designing.

Conducting our research, we took into consideration information on demographics; learners’ motivation and their background knowledge. As for demographics, a survey of 60 students at Saint Petersburg Mining University shows that our target audience includes mostly male Bachelors with diverse cultural backgrounds (most of them belong to Russian and CIS cultures). As the average age of our learners is 21 to 23, they belong to Generation Y or Millennials (also named Generation Y and the Net Generation) born between 1982 and 2004 according to the Strauss-Howe generational theory

The integrative Business English course we are designing is specifically targeted to master’s students of technical specialties aimed to succeed in the international workplace. One of the main features is that the course should blend with the existing offline ESP and Business English courses at Saint Petersburg Mining University. Our empirical research shows that the learning groups often include learners with different levels of English: from Beginners to Advanced learners. Most of them have from average to poor English speaking and listening skills. One of our surveys shows that most of the students can devote to training from 30 min to 1 hour in the evenings.

The results of 60 students’ self-assessment of their performance in speaking activities they expect to do in English at work are the following:

• Giving their opinions
• Using professional terminology
• Taking part in negotiations
• Taking part in trainings
• Presenting their business portfolio
• Describing graphs and calculations
• Making presentations
• Talking over the phone
• Introducing themselves
• Taking job interviews.

 

The results of 60 Students’ Self-assessment of their Performance in Writing Activities they Expect to Do in English at work are:

• Working with documentation
• Writing research papers
• Describing their research
• Writings emails and CVs.

 

The results of 60 master’s students studying technical disciplines at Saint Petersburg Mining University are kept at the department of foreign languages of St Petersburg Mining University.

As to the contribution of the research, we want to focus the idea that a created online course has showed its effectiveness in learning process and met pedagogical standards of the university where it had been applied.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The components of an excellent evaluation research study are included and explained very well. The authors present both qualitative and quantitative evidence (the latter being a robust correlation coefficient value) to report their evaluation results. They have included relevant tables and line graphs and other visuals to supplement their narrative summaries of evaluation criteria. The conclusions are well grounded in the findings. Relevant recommendations for ongoing evaluation are presented. I recommend proofreading for correction of a handful of minor errors. Overall, excellent study worthy of publication.

Author Response

Dear colleague,

We are really grateful for the response that you have given to our article. Thank you so much for your positive review.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper the authors describes the design of an online Business English course that can be used in asynchronous learning and at the same time adjustable to the offline ESP and Business English course.

The authors did empirical research among 60 master's students and get some interesting outcome.

Nonetheless, the paper has some serious drawbacks. First, of all the is no review section, describing related research. Moreover, the authors chose to use the ADDIE method, without justified/explained their decision for this choice. Finally, and because of the above, there is no clear contribution of their research.

Author Response

 

Dear sir/madam,

We are grateful for the response you have given on our article. We paid careful attention to all your comments that may improve the paper.

1) Towards the lack of a review section describing “instructional design” we would like to underline the paragraph that exists in the article and where a range of authors who dedicated their researches to instructional design is mentioned.

The concept of “instructional design” has been among the research interests of many foreign (R. M. Gagne, R. M. Branch, W. Dick, L. Carey, J. O. Carey, L. J. Briggs, M. D. Merrill, S. McNeil) and Russian (A. Uvarov, E. V. Abyzova, M. V. Moiseeva, E. V. Tikhomirova, M. N. Krasnyansky) researchers for a long time.    

But we have decided to emphasize that “pedagogical design involves analyzing the needs of the target audience, setting goals and learning objectives, choosing and forming a system of ways to transfer and control knowledge, creating a unique educational environment” [15, 16, 17].

 

It is pedagogical design that by opinion of E. Tikhomirova helps learners to get a complete picture of the whole learning process and actions that need to be performed to achieve the result; it helps students progress consistently through the course; it points out where interactive components are most relevant and effective; makes connections between pedagogy and technology, allowing one advantageously complements the other and provides the necessary tools.

 

2) To justify the decision to choose an ADDIE method we would consider it to be the most appropriate for creating an online course as it counts on specific target audience, presents the sequence of presentation of educational material based on the skills and abilities students already possess. Clearly defined steps of the ADDIE model not only advance a new course into the educational programme but enhance cognitive activity of students.

 

3) As to the contribution of the research, we want to focus the idea that a created online course has showed its effectiveness in learning process and met pedagogical standards of the university where it had been applied

 

To conclude, it must be mentioned that further analysis whether the course is applicable for master’s students of various technical institutes and disciplines should be implemented.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is written in a mixed research. The objectives, methods, results, and conclusions were clearly stated. Authors tried to provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature, but still, I have some doubts to be explained. 

 

 

1.  In the discussion part, there is only a brief description of the Focus Group Discussion, but failed to explore the reasons. It is suggested to conduct an in-depth analysis of the relationship between them, which can be combined with the interview part. Because the research results of the interview are not well reflected in the discussion.

2. It is suggested to deeply explain the reasons for Focus Group Discussion results. And there is no conclusion and future development direction.

3. I suggest the author better explain the conclusion of this study, such as the significance of this study for practice, as well as the significance and limitations of this study. 

4. Regarding previous work, I think there is a lot of recent important work left out and many references included that could be left out.

Author Response

Dear sir/madam,

We are really grateful for the response you have given to our article. We paid careful attention to all your comments that may improve the paper.

1) Towards the brief description of the Focus Group Discussion and our failure to explore the reasons, we would like to underline that  there are the paragraphs in the article where it is possible to find the necessary information, analyzing the reasons of choosing of the representatives of the Focus Group:

Our longitude observations and empirical research let us identify the gap between what master’s students expect to do in English in their future professional life, what they learn to do in English within their offline Business English course, and specify the needs of our target audience. We have carried a series of surveys among 60 master’s students studying technical disciplines at Saint Petersburg Mining University to find out their expectations of their English language competences in their future professional life. Analytical and descriptive methods helped us conduct a comparative analysis of existing online Business English courses, a target audience analysis, and a needs analysis… A target audience analysis usually includes 1) information on demographics; 2) learners’ motivation; and 3) their background knowledge. As for demographics, a survey of 60 students at Saint Petersburg Mining University shows that our target audience includes mostly male Bachelors with diverse cultural backgrounds (most of them belong to Russian and CIS cultures). As the average age of our learners is 21 to 23, they belong to Generation Y or Millennials (also named Generation Y and the Net Generation) born between 1982 and 2004 according to the Strauss-Howe generational theory.

As for the results of the interview, they are presented at the Results part of the paper, here are the examples:

To make our course efficient, we consider their learning habits and preferences: these learners choose eLearning, they like hands-on activities, and prefer learning through social learning tools such as blogs, podcasts, and mobile applications. One of our surveys proves that our target audience like watching short videos (56%) and participating actively in their learning (44%). We also assume that our target audience includes auditory, visual and kinesthetic learners. Most of the learners have high level of computer literacy. 

Our target audience is highly motivated: most of them want to take the course be-cause they want to work in international companies and/or projects and make careers. Many of the career conscious students are aware of the role of English in their future work. Most of the respondents need this course in order to: 1) obtain new knowledge or skill (31%); 2) get a job in an international company (47%); 3) keep their current job (2%); or 4) get a promotion in their career (16%). It is also possible that some of the learners will only take this course because it is scheduled by their curriculum (4%).

Summing up, the reasons of the choice of Focus Group are quite obvious: we are working at one of the oldest technical universities of the world – the Mining University with bachelor and master students, which have their own peculiarities and needs, so our typical master students, whom we usually teach, were chosen for our research. It is absolutely necessary to understand what is urgent for exactly the most typical representatives of the master students for effective designing an integrative online business English course.

 

2) As for future development direction of our research, it is the following: 1) to design and develop the multimedia environment of the course; 2) to develop and perfect the content and saturate the course with multiple activities; 3) to develop and assess its interactivity; 4) to make the course updatable; 5) implement, monitor and assess the course; and 6) unify the requirements to all master’s students in case the university is interested.

 .   

 

3) As to the conclusion of our research and its significance to practice, we want to focus the idea that the online course, which we are creating, proves to show its effectiveness at the learning process and met pedagogical standards of the Mining University, where it had been developed and applied.

4) Speaking about the literature analysis, we can say that at the next stage of our research we will analyze those important research works, which are not used now. We are sure, that they’ll make a great contribution to our research. As for other included references, we can’t agree that they may be omitted. Firstly, because most of them make the foundation of our research. Secondly, some of the authors are the representatives of the teaching staff of our university, and, according to the requirements of the Publication Department of the University, where we are working, it is absolutely necessary to analyze the works of the colleagues because we all are members of united scientific team.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors thoroughly explain why they choose the ADDIE method.

But mentioning the names of researchers who have worked on the subject is not a review. There is no description of related works. Also, I can not see the contribution of the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

 

Congratulations, I accept this publication