Employing the Performance Evaluation Method to Examine the Efficacy of English Language Instruction: Insights from Primary Educational Institutions in Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focused on an interesting and important topic: analyzing performance to enhance effective language learning. It thoroughly reviewed relevant literature and examined a sizable group of EFL learners. However, there are four main concerns about its importance and design. Firstly, although the study introduced the Kano model and the three-factors theory, it didn’t clearly explain how these theories guide researchers or what specific gaps the study aims to fill. Secondly, the literature review didn’t include many recent studies, especially those from the last three years. Thirdly, while the section on validity and reliability results offered some explanations, they weren’t discussed thoroughly, particularly validity. For instance, the study didn’t explore measurement validity and construct validity. Lastly, since it’s a quantitative study with over 400 participants, it’s important to illustrate how applicable its findings are to a larger group of EFL learners.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine and clear. Pay attention to tense in results and discussion sections. 

Author Response

Comments from Reviewers:

Reviewer #1:

• This study focused on an interesting and important topic: analyzing performance to enhance effective language learning. It thoroughly reviewed relevant literature and examined a sizable group of EFL learners. However, there are four main concerns about its importance and design.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We are truly grateful to receive such important input and recommendations. This is certainly to improve the quality of the manuscript for publication in the Education Sciences journal. We also thank you for providing major comments, which we have tried to address in this response letter. We have made an effort to address each piece of feedback and recommendation from the reviewer. Every change in the manuscript is marked in green. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory for the reviewer. 

• Firstly, although the study introduced the Kano model and the three-factors theory, it didn’t clearly explain how these theories guide researchers or what specific gaps the study aims to fill.

Response: Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. We acknowledge that the introduction section indeed requires significant revision and improvement. Therefore, we have accepted the reviewer's input and have made efforts to address it.

This study employs the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) and the Revised Kano Model to address specific gaps in understanding English learning satisfaction. The Revised Kano Model simplifies the traditional Kano model by focusing on forward indicators, thereby enhancing the clarity and efficiency of the analysis. This method involves deriving two indicators, Dummy 1 and Dummy 2, and employing the "natural logarithmic two-virtual factor partial correlation analysis method" to obtain β1 and β2 values. These values aid in categorizing items and constructing the Satisfaction of English Instruction Quality Matrix.

By identifying key attributes that enhance satisfaction and reduce dissatisfaction, the study provides guidance for researchers in designing effective and engaging English learning activities. This approach bridges the gap by offering a clearer understanding of how to improve the quality of English instruction through targeted methods, addressing both satisfaction and dissatisfaction factors.

• Secondly, the literature review didn’t include many recent studies, especially those from the last three years.

Response: Thank you for the feedback and recommendations from the reviewer regarding the addition of several manuscripts published in the past three years. We need to highlight that some of these references are already included in the manuscript, such as Hu et al. (2022) and Jou & Day (2021). However, we will add more publications from the past three years based on the reviewer's suggestions. In the literature review section, we have added several references published within the last three years seperti Jiang et al. (2023) and Barrios-Ipenza et al. (2024). We have also included these references in this response letter. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

Reference:

Barrios-Ipenza, R., Calvo-Mora, A., Roldán, J. L., & Ayala, R. M. (2024). Quality assessment of graduate services: Kano model application to a Peruvian university. Quality in Higher Education, 1-22.

Hu, K. C., Chia, K. C., Lu, M., & Liang, Y. L. (2022). Using importance–performance analysis, goal difficulty and the Kano model to prioritize improvements in the quality of home delivery logistics services. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 33(2), 477-498.

Jiang, X., Zhang, J., Yang, C., & Wan, R. (2023). Evaluating the service quality of insular and coastal recreational fisheries by integration of the SERVQUAL-fuzzy Kano model and importance-performance analysis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 243, 106753.

Jou, R. C., & Day, Y. J. (2021). Application of revised importance–performance analysis to investigate critical service quality of hotel online booking. Sustainability, 13(4), 2043.

Tejero-Dakay, I., Lozano, L., & Ferolin, R. (2024). Enucleating the student support and services needs in higher education: the application of Kano analysis as a strategic tool. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(3), 711-729.

• Thirdly, while the section on validity and reliability results offered some explanations, they weren’t discussed thoroughly, particularly validity. For instance, the study didn’t explore measurement validity and construct validity.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer, particularly regarding the validity and reliability of our study. However, we need to clarify that the study employs two diagnostic methods, IPA and the Revised Kano Model, applied to English learning contexts. These methods aim to identify areas needing improvement within the 20 questionnaire items related to English learning. Specifically, they highlight four items requiring enhancement, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. The study offers strategic suggestions for improving these four items in the Discussion section. This approach ensures that the identified issues are addressed effectively, thereby enhancing the overall quality of English instruction. It's our hope that the revision will be satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Lastly, since it’s a quantitative study with over 400 participants, it’s important to illustrate how applicable its findings are to a larger group of EFL learners.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. Indeed, this input is crucial and should be considered for adding an additional paragraph to explain the applicability of this research to a larger group of EFL learners. Therefore, we have added an additional paragraph in the discussion section and marked it in green as follows. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

“The applicability of these findings to a broader context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners emphasizes the significance of customized instructional strategies and the allocation of appropriate resources. Concentrating on the identified critical areas allows educators to substantially improve the quality of English instruction. Future research should investigate the long-term effects of these strategies on student outcomes across various educational environments. Moreover, incorporating technology and multimedia resources into English instruction can further enhance student engagement and learning effectiveness, as noted by Li et al. [50]. This comprehensive approach ensures that the educational interventions are both practical and scalable, thus benefiting a wide spectrum of EFL learners.”

• English language is fine and clear. Pay attention to tense in results and discussion sections. 

Response: Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer, noting that the English writing in this manuscript is fine and clear. This is truly an achievement and a testament to our hard work in writing this manuscript. We are very grateful that the reviewer highlighted this important point. We hope that future revisions made to this manuscript will be satisfactory to the reviewer and beneficial to the readers as well. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Reviewer #2: Review comments

• Dear Editorial Board, I have reviewed Educational Sciences manuscript #2978408. The manuscript is very clear and well-written and I endorse it for publication pending minor revisions, the majority of which are in the discussion section. My specific comments are included below. I am confident that the revised manuscript will be ready for publication if the author(s) and editors are satisfied with the revisions based upon these comments. I do not need to review the article again, but I will be happy to do so if it would be beneficial. My specific comments are addressed by section below, and I ask that the author(s) respond to them on a Word document rather than on the manuscript itself. Thank you and warm wishes in moving towards the publication of this manuscript.

Response: Thank you for the comments, feedback, and recommendations from the reviewer, including the endorsement for this manuscript to be published in Education Sciences. This is truly an achievement for us, reflecting the hard work put into the writing and research process. We also appreciate the reviewer's sincerity in agreeing to review the revised manuscript. Motivated by this, we have made an effort to address all feedback from the reviewer and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Introduction: This is excellently written. Any recommendations are minor.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer, including the minor suggestions for improving the Introduction section. We greatly appreciate this insightful input. Accordingly, we have revised the Introduction section following the reviewer’s guidance. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Line 50: is citing the Kano model possible? I would recommend it.

Response: Thank you for the feedback provided by the reviewer. We have accepted this input and have included citations for the Kano model in the specified line. We have marked this addition in green in the manuscript. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Line 61: which challenges are resolved here?

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We acknowledge the need to add information about the challenges to be addressed, as indicated in line 61. Therefore, we have provided reasoning regarding the challenges resolved by both methods. These methods are enterprise diagnostic tools aimed at identifying shortcomings within an enterprise and proposing strategies for improvement. This study applies these methods in the field of education. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Literature review: Line 69: I think a short paragraph presenting how each of the subtopics that you’re introducing relate to one another, as well as to the broader aims of the study, would make this section much clearer. The quality of the writing is excellent within each subsection, but it would be easier to understand how each of these subsections contributes to addressing your RQs, which were (very helpfully) identified in the introduction.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We have incorporated the reviewer's recommendations by adding an overview explaining how each subsection in the literature review is interconnected. Additionally, this overview elucidates how the research questions are addressed through the conducted literature review. We have marked the revisions in green in the manuscript. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Line 84: Missing apostrophe

Response: Thank you for the attention to detail from the reviewer. Without the reviewer's input, we might not have noticed the missing apostrophe in line 84. Therefore, we have revised and added the apostrophe as suggested by the reviewer. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Line 144: Missing punctuation

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We acknowledge that there was indeed a missing punctuation mark on line 144. Therefore, we have revised and added the punctuation as indicated. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Line 146, line 150: Change semicolon to comma

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We acknowledge that the semicolon in this line was used incorrectly. Therefore, we have revised it and changed the semicolon to a comma. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Lines 154-156: Here, please provide a brief introduction to and explanation of what you are describing, similar to the presentation of the Kano model.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We acknowledge the need to provide a brief introduction to the presentation of the Kano model in this section. Therefore, we have added a brief introduction of the Kano model following the reviewer's suggestion. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Research methodology: Before line 178, please restate the research questions and add your hypotheses. This is essential (particularly for the quantitative component of your study) and serves as the glue between the concise literature review and the methods employed in the present study.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We have added the research question and a brief introduction of the research methodology. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Line 191: no apostrophe here

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We acknowledge that the apostrophe in line 191 is not necessary. Therefore, we have revised it according to the reviewer's suggestion. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Line 191: later grade, rather than latter-grade

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We have revised line 191 according to the reviewer's suggestion. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Lines 207-211: I think that this belongs in the literature review. You can show there how this is relevant to the present study, and then discuss in this section how you applied this methodology. I think this goes along with my comment regarding line 69 above and would be a nice way to introduce this construct to the reader even earlier in the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We would like to clarify that in this section, the IPA method description corresponds to the graphics, and the example application (English learning) is in Section 3.2. We sincerely hope that the revisions made to this manuscript are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Lines 236-240: I really like how the author(s) has included this to relate how the methods employed will make a meaningful contribution to the study. This will be an even stronger contribution if the authors do ultimately determine that they wish to include a more explicit section with RQs and hypotheses, as I advocated for in line 178.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. However, we decided to present the research question (RQ) and hypothesis in the previous overview. We believe this comprehensively covers the research methodology section, avoiding repetitive content. Therefore, we sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Line 242: Is this subsection called “subsection” on purpose? That could be the name of the methodology, but I am not sure!

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We have removed subsection 3.1.1 as it is part of 3.2, "The Process of Importance-Performance Analysis." We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Line 277: I think there is a subject missing between “besides” and “outlines.”

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We have revised the missing subject on line 277 as indicated. The revision has been marked in green. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Lines 282-283: the sentence seems to be a fragment to me.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer, noting that the sentences in lines 282-283 are fragments. We have revised these lines to ensure they do not sound fragmented. The revisions have been marked in green. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Line 372 and above: Before closing this section, I would argue that it would be useful to delve deeper into which items are in each quadrant. The visual is lovely, but it is hard to parse what the question numbers represent since we don’t know what the survey says. I know that the survey ise included as an appendix, but it would be useful for the author(s) to elaborate a bit here and provide more explicit commentary on their observations.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We acknowledge the suggestion to add a closing sentence before the section ends. Therefore, we have added the following sentence to the indicated line to close the section: "This section applies the revised Kano model using the 'natural logarithmic two-virtual factor partial correlation analysis method' [10] to identify which items need improvement. According to the Three-Factor Theory, this method categorizes the 20 items into their respective factors." We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Lines 373-374: if this is quoted directly from Deng et al.’s work, please include a page number.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. However, we need to clarify that this is not directly quoted from Deng et al.'s work. We are merely citing the theory used by Deng et al. in their research, which utilizes logarithmic two-dummy variables. Therefore, we did not include the page number. We sincerely hope that this clarification is satisfactory to the reviewer.

•  Lines 400-402: see comment regarding line 372. These data are essential to your argument and to the implications that you can provide, so it would be maximally helpful to delve into them a bit more and to understand what each of these questions means.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We acknowledge the importance of communicating the implications of study results clearly. We greatly appreciate the reviewer's input, particularly on how to provide a deeper understanding of the research findings. Therefore, we have added several sentences to further clarify these implications for the readers. The revisions have been marked in green in the manuscript. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Discussion: Lines 414-419: Thanks for including the questions here. Two points arise in this section. Firstly, what do the authors mean by “verified” on line 414? Psychometric validity according to Cronbach’s alpha? Secondly, what do these questions have in common? Here, I think there is an opportunity to delve into the qualitative relationships between questions in order to propose the most coherent pedagogical solutions.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer, particularly regarding the revisions and exploration of lines 414 to 419. Accordingly, we have revised these lines to explain that by employing the IPA and revised Kano model methods, we identified four critical items that require discussion and improvement, namely item 15. These items were verified through the use of psychometric validity according to Cronbach’s alpha, ensuring their reliability and significance. These four items represent common challenges in enhancing students' English learning. The analysis of the questionnaire data, combined with these two diagnostic methods, clearly indicates the necessity of addressing these issues. Furthermore, the qualitative relationships between these items suggest coherent pedagogical solutions, enabling targeted and effective improvements in English instruction. We have marked these revisions in green in the manuscript. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Lines 433-436: What do you mean by a detailed description of responsibilities and how will this support students who do not have high levels of English performance?

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments regarding lines 433-436. We have revised the paragraph to clarify what is meant by a detailed description of responsibilities and how this support can aid students who do not have high levels of English performance. The revised paragraph is as follows:

In line with that, in order to improve the issue of a current capability gap in English ability among students, the study recommends that English teachers instruct in accordance with the English abilities of students prior to initiation of teaching them in order to carry out the strategy of group-project instruction. Additionally, it is necessary for teachers to provide after-school tutoring and help from higher-achieving classmates. Teachers should inform students about their learning styles and give them a detailed description of the responsibilities of the high-achieving students who will assist those with lower English abilities. If a student has learning difficulties, they can immediately seek help from their higher-achieving classmates, which should improve their learning effectiveness in the long run.

•  Lines 437-446: While it is undeniably important for teachers to provide discipline and to manage concerns related to student behavior, I fear that this explanation may not get at a deeper-rooted issue related to the fact that students may behave in a certain way because they don’t see motivation for studying English. I would rephrase this section to focus more on the strategies that teachers can use to foster students’ positive identities as bilinguals, rather than concentrating on the role of the teacher as a discipline figure.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding lines 437-446. We have revised the paragraph to focus more on the strategies that teachers can use to foster students’ positive identities as bilinguals, rather than concentrating on the role of the teacher as a disciplinarian. The revised paragraph is as follows:

"Secondly, item 16 (Do you think the learning attitudes of students—for instance introversion, attentiveness, and teacher-student interaction—are important?) is identified as a critical educational issue. According to this educational deficiency, the study suggests that an effective teacher must employ strategies that foster students' positive identities as bilinguals, rather than solely focusing on discipline. Teachers should encourage a supportive learning environment that enhances student motivation and engagement in studying English. Dreikurs and Grey [51] identify various causes of misbehavior, such as attention-seeking, power contests, revenge, and displaying inadequacy. To protect students' rights to education and to offer a conducive learning environment, it is essential for teachers to address behavioral issues by promoting positive student identities and motivating them to embrace bilingualism. This approach will help manage misbehavior while fostering a positive and motivating classroom atmosphere [6,34,50,51]."

•  Lines 447-452: this is in the exact spirit of my previous comment. I really like this piece here, as it places the responsibility on the educator finding solutions that engage students, rather than on students for not being engaged.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback on lines 447-452. We have revised the paragraph to emphasize the role of educators in finding solutions that engage students, as follows:

“Furthermore, according to the results of an effective improvement of teaching quality attributes based on the revised Kano model, item 11 (The English teacher is supposed to design relevant games according to the lesson) falls into the second quadrant, signifying that the current educational authorities in primary schools should focus more effort on providing greater educational resources. This improvement is necessary to address the deficiencies in current English education that significantly discourage positive learning motivation in students. The Revised Kano model [9] aims to find out the attributes of learning English that highly increase students' learning satisfaction (β1) and highly reduce students' learning dissatisfaction (β2), which are the most beneficial. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers to design interesting games related to English learning to attract students to integrate into learning English.”

• Lines 465-468: I fully agree that students really enjoy consuming media in English. How can teachers leverage this further to motivate students to consume this media outside of the classroom? If, as the author(s) states, there isn’t enough time in the day for teachers to carry out all of the necessary planning, this might be a welcome recommendation where teachers do not have to do all of the work in getting students engaged in English.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding lines 465-468. We have revised the paragraph to address your suggestion on leveraging multimedia to motivate students to consume English media outside the classroom. The revised paragraph is as follows:

“Aside from that, Li et al. [53] in their study also highlighted that the moment English learning system, multimedia English learning is being made good use of in class, it is able to enhance learners’ willingness of English learning together with grappling phonemic awareness of English. According to Li et al. [53], multimedia English learning applications do have their effects in the classroom, provided that teachers must carefully select multimedia English learning videos in order to assist teachers in teaching needs. To further motivate students to consume media in English outside the classroom, teachers can recommend engaging multimedia content that students can explore independently. This approach allows students to practice English in a fun and interactive way, without requiring extensive additional planning from teachers.”

 Line 470: which also falls into the second quadrant.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's suggestions. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Lines 471-473: I found this point a bit difficult to understand. Perhaps breaking it into multiple shorter sentences would be best.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding lines 471-473. We have revised the paragraph to make it clearer with shorter sentences. The revised paragraph is as follows:

“Finally, in terms of item 18 (The examination questions should be formulated according to the teaching material that students have learned), which also falls into the second quadrant, the relevant authorities should expand educational resources to increase student satisfaction and reduce dissatisfaction with English teaching. The Revised Kano model [9] identifies attributes that increase learning satisfaction (β1) and reduce dissatisfaction (β2). This underscores the need to expand resources to improve teaching quality and student satisfaction.”

•  Lines 482-484: I would argue that conventional assessments of the nature that the authors describe actually don’t provide a complete understanding of knowledge for many learners, precisely those ones who are not as motivated. I would drive home the point that project-based learning is the current trend in language class assessment, and I think that if students are engaged in this type of learning, they will find greater meaning in their work and will be more likely to exhibit their holistic knowledge that may not be capturable through a traditional test.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding lines 482-484. We have revised the paragraph to emphasize the limitations of conventional assessments and highlight the benefits of project-based learning. The revised paragraph is as follows:

“Evaluating learning effectiveness through test scores is one of the methods generally recognized by teachers. As for those students who are slow in learning, it is recommended to establish an after-school tutoring mechanism and provide assistance to the primary school teachers in the class so that they can gradually catch up with the learning progress in the class.

The primary reason why most teachers prefer to implement assessments over adopting alternative methods of evaluation for measuring the learning abilities of learners is probably due to the fact that the approach of testing has been argued to be the most convenient and fastest way to comprehend the current learning situation of learners; moreover, assessment can allow teachers a complete understanding of whether or not learners are familiar with the knowledge they have instructed in class. However, conventional assessments may not provide a complete understanding of knowledge for many learners, especially those who are less motivated. Project-based learning is a current trend in language class assessment. This approach offers students greater meaning in their work and allows them to exhibit holistic knowledge that may not be captured through traditional tests.”

• Lines 488-490: how do the author(s) propose that educators who likely do not have a strong foundation in psychometrics confirm the validity of their measures?

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding lines 488-490. We have revised the paragraph to provide clearer guidance for educators who may not have a strong foundation in psychometrics. The revised paragraph is as follows:

“Assessment can allow teachers a complete understanding of whether or not learners are familiar with the knowledge they have been instructed in class. Notably, according to testing results, teachers can precisely pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses of each subject that students take [50]. Generally, teachers are very cautious when designing English test questions to test learning effectiveness and make appropriate adjustments to teaching methods based on students' answering conditions. As for educators who do not have strong abilities in psychometrics, it is recommended that they seek help from experienced teachers and slowly adjust to normalcy. This collaborative approach can help ensure that the validity of their measures is confirmed, thereby improving the overall effectiveness of the assessments.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides relevant information and is well founded. However, there is an error in the numbering of section 3.1.1. The immediately preceding section corresponds to section 3.2. This error causes confusion to the reader.

It would be beneficial to have more information on the context of the rural schools in which the research was conducted.

In addition, the names of the authors referenced in the text appear in blue, when they should be in black.

Please note that the names of the journals in the references have been spelled out, rather than abbreviated as recommended in the editorial standards.

Finally, the use of commas in bibliographic references should be reviewed, as they should not be included before the date of the publication. 

Author Response

Reviewer#3

• The article provides relevant information and is well founded. However, there is an error in the numbering of section 3.1.1. The immediately preceding section corresponds to section 3.2. This error causes confusion to the reader.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We acknowledge that this was an error made by the author during the writing process. Therefore, we have revised it by removing this part because it belongs to Section 3.2, "The Process of Importance-Performance Analysis." We sincerely hope that the revisions made to this manuscript are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• It would be beneficial to have more information on the context of the rural schools in which the research was conducted.

Response: Thank you for the feedback provided by the reviewer. We have added some brief information about the rural school where this research was conducted. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• In addition, the names of the authors referenced in the text appear in blue, when they should be in black.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We have revised this section by changing the in-text citations to black as indicated by the reviewer. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Please note that the names of the journals in the references have been spelled out, rather than abbreviated as recommended in the editorial standards.

Response: Thank you for the feedback provided by the reviewer on this matter. We are very grateful that the reviewer has paid close attention to this section. Accordingly, we have followed the reviewer's input and suggestions and have revised the specified section. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

• Finally, the use of commas in bibliographic references should be reviewed, as they should not be included before the date of the publication. 

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's suggestions. We sincerely hope that the revisions made are satisfactory to the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf