Perceived Student Readiness and Its Role in Language Teachers’ Evolving Willingness to Teach Online

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study, explicating U.S. language teachers' perceptions regarding students' readiness for online language learning, addresses an ever-relevant and fertile area of inquiry. The manuscript is worthy of merit, offering a thorough review of the recent literature, insightful findings, and a cogent discussion. It is presented clearly and in a well-structured manner. However, its methodology lags behind the otherwise solid theoretical and analytical grounding, as it lacks sufficient detail, weakening the reliability of the study.

Although the selected research design is scientifically sound and appropriate for the study’s objectives, the information given in the methods section is insufficient. The software used to process numeric data is not specified (was it SPSS?). Issues of validity and reliability are not adequately addressed. The authors mention having conducted EFA and CFA analyses, but fail to describe them. Instead, only a brief mention appears in the results section (Lines 303-306). The findings of EFA are reported only partially (Line 308: a factor loading of .39 is marginal? how about the rest of the loadings?), while CFA results are missing altogether. The EFA table and a visualized CFA model could be included in the Appendix.

Furthermore, information about the correlation analysis should appear in the Methodology section rather than being implied in the results. It is unclear whether the authors used Pearson’s r or Spearman’s rho, and whether the assumptions for these tests were met. A brief mention of relevant methodological sources on statistical analysis would also strengthen this section. In lines 456-460, the authors describe the regression analysis procedure, but this information should be moved to the Methodology section.

The authors preferred not to formulate hypotheses; however, these are typically expected in statistical studies. Variables, along with their corresponding constructs, should be introduced in the methodology to provide a foundation for the statistical analysis.

In sum, the study is conceptually strong, yet its methodological section requires substantial elaboration to reach the quality standards of a high-impact journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments and acknowledgement of the paper’s strength. Following the reviewer’s suggestions, we provided more details in the quantitative methodology part of the paper. Below is a summary:

1. The reviewer asked for more validity and reliability information. We took the following three steps in revision. First, in the Literature Review section, Lines 170–177, we explained how constructs of “perceived values” and “teacher confidence” were perceived in the Technology Acceptance Model to provide background of the constructs’ content validity. Second, we addressed how we control the validity and reliability of the scales used in the survey instrument (Lines 285–293). Specifically, the “perceived value” scale and “teacher confidence” scale were adopted from Jin et al. (2021), and their construct validity was established through factor analysis in that earlier study. The “student readiness” scale was modified from Jin et al. (2021), with the incorporation of further concepts in Martin (2020), to ensure content validity. Finally, we report the reliability of all three scales in the “Result” section, Lines 351–
2. For RQ1, the reviewer asked for factor loadings of all items for the “student readiness” construct. After reassessing our goal, we determined that a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was more appropriate than EFA or CFA, as our main goal was to reveal different aspects of “student readiness” descriptively. We described the procedure under “Data analysis” in Lines 318–322 and reported the results in Lines 354–358, along with Table 2. Table 2 has been significantly revised to include the factor loadings of all items, the Eigenvalue of each component, and the % of variations explained by each component.
3. The reviewer asked us to specify the software used, the type of correlation coefficient used (for RQ2) and to move the regression analysis procedure of RQ3 to the Methods section. The information can be found under “3.3. Data analysis”, Lines 322– We also followed the reviewer’s suggestion to clarify how assumptions were met for the correlation analysis immediately under Section 4.2, Lines 424–427.
4. The reviewer asked us to consider adding hypotheses and specifying variables. In response to the point of hypothesis, we agree that formal statistical hypotheses can be standard in standalone quantitative investigations. In our mixed-method design, our overarching goal was not simply to confirm or reject specific statistical relationships but we are also interested in deeper qualitative investigations into the reasons behind patterns. Thus, framing the study with research questions rather than statistical hypotheses helps us justify the equally important second phase of the quantitative study.

    We fully agree that specifying variables will offer clarification. We have revised the text to explicitly identify dependent and independent variables when relevant in relevant sections of statistical analysis (under “data analysis” in Lines 334–339, and in various places under the “Result” section).   

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which helped us improve the paper’s clarity in conveying the methodology of the study. 

 

  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Thank you for your submission. The topic on students’ readiness for online learning during the COVID-19 period has been widely explored, and its relevance to current educational contexts is rather limited. The paper would need a stronger and more updated perspective to contribute meaningfully to today’s discussions on digital and hybrid learning.

Thank you

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for pointing out these important considerations. We agree that our paper should be framed in a way that emphasizes its relevance in the ongoing digital transformation in education. We have fully revised the Introduction and several relevant paragraphs in the Literature Review, Discussion, and Conclusion sections.

To clarify the nascent stage of scholarly inquiries on  “student readiness“ in language education:

1. We started our “Introduction” acknowledging that, in comparison to general online education, online language education has a much shorter history due to the uniqueness of language teaching and various barriers before 2020 (“Introduction” Lines 23–34). Then, in “Introduction” Lines 40–44 and “Literature Review” Lines 76–86, we explained why student readiness in the general online education domain does not necessarily translate to students’ preparedness for learning languages online and why students’ online language readiness warrants its domain-specific investigations.
2. Under “Literature Review,” we clearly introduce “student readiness for online language learning” as “an undeveloped domain” in Section 2.1 to contrast it with the substantial scholarship of “student readiness” in the general education domain, and we explained the presence of a few emerging studies in language education after 2020 under Section 2.2. Our literature search (not specified in the manuscript for consideration of space) confirmed the nascent stage of the “student readiness” research in language education: A query of the LLBA and ERIC databases using “student readiness” AND “online language learning/teaching/education” (with “teaching” and “education” as alternatives to “learning” in the keywords) yielded only a handful of articles. Closely related articles have been cited. 

To clarify the contribution of the current study:

1. Towards the end of our Literature Review section, we added a section summarizing the gaps in the current literature (Section 2.5, Lines 207–227). This addition helps explain how the study builds on the emerging foundation of student readiness in digital language learning and charts a roadmap for continuous inquiry in this topic in ongoing educational transformations.
2. In various paragraphs (e.g., Lines 593–611) before the “Conclusion” Section), we pointed out the unique contribution of the study, including its findings regarding the interactive relationship of teacher perceptions and student readiness and the predictive power of perceived student readiness in teachers’ willingness to teach online. These explorations and findings respond to the recent call in the foreign language field to expand and extend factors in the Technology Acceptance Model to online language learning.  

Finally, to highlight the relevance of the study to ongoing inquiries of educational digitalization, we emphasized the following:

1. We justified the context of the study by explaining that the shift to remote teaching and the subsequent normalization of online language teaching was a historical moment where large-scale investigations of “students’ online learning readiness” were first made possible. After the initial unplanned transition, online language teaching has since gained widespread acceptance. Technology acceptance research carried out during this time is considered reflective of students’ perceptions and experiences in online learning, rather than transient responses restricted to the COVID-19 context (e.g., Huang & Zhang, 2024). We further emphasized that studying the interplay between teacher and student attitudes, readiness, and adaptations during historical moments of educational transitions offers a point of reference for longitudinal tracking of how student readiness evolves. This is especially relevant to today’s context, where the educational environment, including teacher perceptions and student responsibilities, is being rapidly transformed and challenged by new technology. We explained these rationales in the last paragraph in the “Introduction” section (Lines 45–55) and in various relevant places under “Discussions” and “Conclusions.”
2. In “Results” and “Discussions,” we have highlighted how teachers perceived and fostered students’ self-responsibility in online learning. The three subthemes we revealed under the component of “student-responsibility,” including students’ self-control, ethical academic conduct, and accountability, continue to be areas of critical concern in today’s educational context as educators consider the challenges and opportunities brought by powerful technology. The strategies shared by teachers in the study emphasized mutual trust and leveraging technology to scaffold students’ self-direction instead of strict control. These experiences offer valuable lessons for today’s educators and administrators. Revisions can be found on Lines 399–421 in “Results”, Lines 558–570 and Lines 586–594 in “Discussions," and Lines 627–632 in “Conclusions.”

(We understand from our previous experience that the above line numbers may be approximate, as the editorial house may change the manuscript format before the version is made available to the reviewers. But we hope the highlights in the revised manuscript make the revisions visible.) We are grateful for the reviewer’s comments, which helped us strengthen our argument and more clearly explain the study’s significance in the current educational context.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a high-quality and well-structured manuscript. It demonstrates originality in examining teachers’ perceptions of student readiness for online language learning, a perspective less explored in earlier research. The study is methodologically robust, engages deeply with recent and relevant literature, and presents coherent, balanced arguments. 

Some sections, especially the literature review and discussion, are quite detailed and occasionally repetitive. The text could be tightened to maintain focus and enhance readability without losing nuance. Although both phases are described well, the quantitative results dominate the presentation. The qualitative analysis, though rich, could be more clearly tied to the research questions and theoretical framework. 

While the conclusion briefly mentions limitations (e.g., lack of students’ self-reports), a separate limitations paragraph would strengthen transparency and rigour.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor stylistic improvements in language fluency could enhance clarity, but the overall scholarly merit is high. The English is overall very good, but there are a few long, complex sentences and inconsistent article use. Some phrases (e.g., “learning curve was huge”) could be smoothed for academic tone.

Author Response

We are grateful for the reviewer’s feedback. In revision, we paid close attention to clearer structuring and expression clarity to help with the paper’s focus and readability. For instance, the Technology Acceptance Model is now introduced in an independent subsection (2.4).  In the “Discussion” section, we removed information that may appear repetitive to what has been mentioned in the “Literature Review.”

To tighten the qualitative analysis to the research questions, we specified that the themes of the qualitative analysis were determined based on the research questions in mind (Lines 341–345). We also incorporated revisions to highlight the major findings from the qualitative analysis, such as the three subthemes of the “students’ self-responsibility” component and teachers’ strategies to scaffold students. This part of the revision also involved paragraph restructuring and can be seen from Lines 383–421. Since some revisions were at the local level (e.g., to improve expression clarity), not all revisions were highlighted.

We fully agree with the reviewer’s suggestion to include a separate limitation paragraph. We retitled our last section “Conclusions and Limitations” and pointed out both the study’s limitations as well as the next steps forward in the last paragraph. 

Following the reviewer's suggestion, we conducted a thorough language check. In some cases, we directly cited our participants' words from oral interviews to ensure transparency in explaining our results. Consequently, some quotations may retain a slightly informal tone.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

Many thanks for the development of this manuscript. In the following lines you will find my feedback aimed at strengthening your proposal: 

1) The introduction provides an overview of the topic and the need to research students' readiness within the teaching-learning environment. It also integrates multiple references that tackle this issue and its examination in various settings. 

2) The literature review has been well developed as it does provide a coherent scope on the topic and how it has evolved during the pandemic and post-pandemic times. It also gives some conclusions on how this topic could be addressed in future studies. 

3) Regarding the methodological section, are there any theoretical or epistemological foundations supporting your methodological choices? While the manuscript explains how the categories were developed for both the quantitative and qualitative inquiries, it lacks a clear justification of the underlying epistemological assumptions guiding these decisions. Expanding on this aspect would strengthen the methodological rigor of your study.

4) Both qualitative and quantitative results are correctly developed. One of the main achievements of this manuscript is the fact that it integrates reasonably the findings of multiple instruments, providing a broad description of the research problem and its scope. 

5) Finally, in the discussion of the results and conclusions, authors provide insights on how this topic could is related to other educational challenges as well as the possibilities to continue studying it in other settings. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for this comment. Under “3.3 Data analysis,” we added a paragraph specifying that our choice of the mixed-method design was justified by the overarching paradigm of pragmatism, described by Cresswell & Plano (2018). We also gave some detailed explanations regarding the purpose of the quantitative and qualitative phases in the design. The descriptions of both phases were strengthened in that section.