Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although it is an interesting study, it fails to mention whether the DVZ was used to teach English language to the pupils involved. This would be clearly stated in the Introduction.

Some of the figures (namely 10 and 11) need to be revised (remove Arabic characters in 10; 11 is empty).

The Discussion section should be a lot more powerful, sentences need to be longer and more stylistic and linking devices should be used. Also, references in this section differ from references in other sections (the use of parentheses). Moreover, the correct use of the decimal separator (.) should be ensured. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language used throughout the manuscript is good, but please address the issues in the Discussion section mentioned above.  

Author Response

 

Comment one:

Although it is an interesting study, it fails to mention whether the DVZ was used to teach the English language to the pupils involved. This would be clearly stated in the Introduction.

Answer: I added to the paragraph on lines 26-30, it is the following :

Debate is an instructional strategy that fosters high-order thinking skills. It enables students to generate and organize arguments, apply them in various contexts, analyze them carefully, include explanations and examples to convince their opponents, evaluate the presented arguments, and make decisions. It creates a meaningful learning environment that allows learners to use the language purposefully while mastering communication skills. When conducted via platforms such as Zoom, debate also becomes an innovative method for teaching English, as it provides students with authentic opportunities to practice the target language in real-time discussions, strengthen their academic writing, and enhance both oral and written argumentation skills in a virtual setting.

Comment 2: Some of the figures (namely 10 and 11) need to be revised (remove Arabic characters in 10; 11 is empty).

Answer: I removed it. It is explained in the tables 

Comment 4: The Discussion section should be a lot more powerful, sentences need to be longer and more stylistic and linking devices should be used. Also, references in this section differ from references in other sections (the use of parentheses). Moreover, the correct use of the decimal separator (.) should be ensured. 

Answer: I tried my best to write long sentences, and I deleted the parentheses

In short, I deleted various figures and addressed nearly all the issues.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on the impact of online debating via Zoom (DVZ) on high school students’ critical thinking, argumentative writing, and social skills, which aligns with the practical needs of digital education transformation. It holds particular reference value in the context of blended online-offline teaching post-pandemic. Regarding the weaknesses, I think firstly, the author may try to improve the sample characteristics, information such as sample size, gender/grade distribution, school type (public/private), and baseline levels (e.g., initial critical thinking ability) maybe more carefully designed and presented. Secondly, there seemds to be ambiguity in core elements of the quasi-experimental design,  the logic behind grouping the experimental and control groups as well as the intervention content can be more specified. Thirdly, unclear mechanism links Zoom’s features to outcomes. Mediation or moderation analyses to clarify this link can be better presented. Lastly, issues such as the quasi-experimental design’s inability to fully rule out confounding variables or limited sample representativeness should be more discussed in details, so as to not weaken the persuasiveness of conclusions instead. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think the English usage in the paper is acceptable. 

Author Response

 

Comment two

Thank you for your valuable comments

Comment 1

The author may try to improve the sample characteristics, information such as sample size, gender/grade distribution, school type (public/private), and baseline levels (e.g., initial critical thinking ability) maybe more carefully designed and presented.

Answer:

I adopted the changes based on your comments

The study was conducted in a governmental high school in Israel. 60 male and female students were involved. They are an Arab Palestinian minority; they live in different areas, and they learn English as a third language. The control group was formed of the two classes, tenth and eleventh students of both schools, while the experimental group was from the tenth and eleventh grades of both schools (n = 30). (7) boys and (23) girls. The sample was the purposive sample, twelfth grades were not included,They were given ten 90-minute tests that included a writing task and a reading comprehension test. Traditional methods included teaching the four language skills, discussing questions, and taking textbook-based English matriculation tests. Students studied English grammar, writing, speaking, and reading in both groups, while in the experimental group discussions and group work via Zoom’s breakout rooms . The first exam results appeared that the experimental group mean was 8.27 in the posttest mean became 11.43 after the intervention. That raise the potential to adopt this tool for the future of education.

 

Comment 2 : Second comment : there seemds to be ambiguity in core elements of the quasi-experimental design,  the logic behind grouping the experimental and control groups as well as the intervention content can be more specified.

 

Answer 2

In this study, various instruments were adopted; the first one is Watson and Glaser's critical thinking appraisal exercise. Students responded to the tests before and after the study. The first researcher also served as a teacher; she translated the test and simplified it before distributing it among students to get their answers. The questions before and after the study. The second instrument was argumentation essay writing pre- and post-tests. Students express their opinions towards different issues like online learning or /school learning, the use of cellphones under the age of 16 agrree or disagree, studying English is important?. All the previous examples were given in addition to many other topics. The argumentation composition focused mainly on the elements of argumentation writing: writing the introduction, expressing an opinion, mentioning the reasons, providing examples, writing counter-arguments, and drawing a conclusion. The third instrument was a questionnaire, which was designed to respond to five domains: critical thinking, argumentation, social interaction, speaking skills, and non-verbal communication skills.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs to be proofread to improve the quality of the language

Author Response

1. Summary
I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation for the reviewer of this work. thank you for taking the time and effort to review this manuscript. I found your feedback and suggestions that are included in this report beneficial and lightened the path to have more explanation and understanding for the research paper.
2. Questions for General Evaluation
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Is the research design appropriate?
Are the methods adequately described?
Are the results clearly presented?
Are the conclusions supported by the results?
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
I modified the introduction; I added general introduction then the importance of studying this topic, added the problem, and the hypothesis.
Comments 2: [I I rewrite the literature review again.]
Response 2: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, done/revised/changed/modified…..to emphasize this point. I read the introduction then I rewrite it all, literature review and the introduction was very precise, I expanded it , also, I changed the methodology , I adopted quantitative method. I added the instruments of the study in a paragraph
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1:
Response 1:    (I checked the language by using Grammarly, I changed some mistakes, I hope that I did everything well )
5. Additional clarifications
The references were changed and arranged according to APA style seven version. But I still have inquiry ( when there are two sources for the same writer in different years how can document the reference? Example Amara and Mar'i, 2005; Amara and Mar'i ,2002). Line 148

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear Author(s),

Through this study, you aimed to examine the effect of online debates via Zoom on high school students' social interaction skills, with the purpose of persuading teachers to use Zoom for debates and to modify their perspectives on technology in virtual classrooms.

In my opinion, the paper you have prepared requires major revisions to meet the publication requirements. In this regard, I would like to highlight several issues I have identified:

Abstract

- Before using an abbreviation, include the full spelling of the phrase followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.

Introduction 

- This section needs revision as it contains claims that are not supported by scientific arguments, such as those in lines 30–31.

Literature Review

- This section should be expanded. Additionally, it is necessary to use a uniform font size throughout.

General text review

- Certain ideas are not clearly expressed, or the style used is overly telegraphic. For example:

- Line 60: "It is a heterogeneous society (Muslims, Christians, Jews, and)."

- Line 106: "Variables of the study included men and women. Class 10 and 11. Biology, chemistry, computing, sociology, ecology, and physics. Students use laptops, iPads, and phones."

- Line 350: "Zoom improves learning (Heppen et al., 2017)."

- Line 359: "Debate links ideas. (Kuhn, 2019)."

Figures

- The figures need to be reviewed or even removed in some cases. Several elements must be corrected, such as:

- Titles of figures should not be included within the figures themselves.

- Non-English words should be removed (e.g., in Figure 10).

- Legends should follow a uniform style (e.g., overlapping text, inconsistent spacing, missing text, incorrect representations, etc., as seen in Figures 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14).

Citation of sources

- The citation style needs to be reviewed. For example:

- In line 351: "However, (Efriana, 2021) noted student and parent technology issues. (Cabual & Cabual, 2022)."

- It is essential to adhere to the specific citation style of this journal.

 

Kind regards,

 

A Reviewer

 

Author Response

 

Thank you very much for your precious comments, they are very valuable for me and I am very grateful to your suggestions. I did huge effort to obey your instructions and to modify the work. Here are the comments and responds

 

Dear Author(s),

Through this study, you aimed to examine the effect of online debates via Zoom on high school students' social interaction skills, with the purpose of persuading teachers to use Zoom for debates and to modify their perspectives on technology in virtual classrooms.

In my opinion, the paper you have prepared requires major revisions to meet the publication requirements. In this regard, I would like to highlight several issues I have identified:

 

Comment 1

Abstract- Before using an abbreviation, include the full spelling of the phrase followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.  Response I modified it

Introduction 

Comment 2- This section needs revision as it contains claims that are not supported by scientific arguments, such as those in lines 30–31. I rewrite all the introduction paragraphs, i added  different paragraphs.

 Comment 3 Literature Review

- This section should be expanded. Additionally, it is necessary to use a uniform font size throughout.  I expanded it, i added also theoritical framework

Comment 4 General text review

- Certain ideas are not clearly expressed, or the style used is overly telegraphic. For example:

- Line 60: "It is a heterogeneous society (Muslims, Christians, Jews, and)." I modified it

- Line 106: "Variables of the study included men and women. Class 10 and 11. Biology, chemistry, computing, sociology, ecology, and physics. Students use laptops, iPads, and phones."   I modified it

- Line 350: "Zoom improves learning   Done

- Line 359: "Debate links ideas. (Kuhn, 2019)."     Done

Figures

- The figures need to be reviewed or even removed in some cases. Several elements must be corrected, such as:

- Titles of figures should not be included within the figures themselves.

- Non-English words should be removed (e.g., in Figure 10).

- Legends should follow a uniform style (e.g., overlapping text, inconsistent spacing, missing text, incorrect representations, etc., as seen in Figures 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14).

Citation of sources

- The citation style needs to be reviewed. For example:

- In line 351: "However, (Efriana, 2021) noted student and parent technology issues.  (Cabual & Cabual, 2022)."  This reference Cabual is too authers have the same family name.

- It is essential to adhere to the specific citation style of this journal. I reviewed and modified all the references

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the article presents interesting research on the use of technology in teaching, it highlights several structural and methodological criticalities that require revision before publication. The methodological section is deficient in defining and justifying the fundamental research choices, making it difficult to evaluate the reliability of the presented results. A significant weakness emerges in the statistical framework, where fundamental correlations between variables and considerations about the practical relevance of statistically significant results are missing.

The cultural and technological context, a crucial element for research of this type, is not sufficiently analyzed in its implications. The lack of comparison with other international educational contexts severely limits the scope of the results. The article does not adequately address issues related to technological access and pre-existing digital skills, aspects that could significantly influence the observed results.

The article's structure needs substantial revision to improve its cohesion and communicative effectiveness. The bibliography, besides requiring an update, should be better integrated into the text to more solidly support the presented arguments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your precious comments, they are very valuable for me and I am very grateful to your suggestions. I did huge effort to obey your instructions and to modify the work. Here are the comments and responds 

i followed the instruction and i modified different paragraphs and i add others 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a general contextualization of the study within the existing literature, mainly focusing on the use of debates in education and the Zoom platform to foster critical thinking and argumentation skills. However, the theoretical background and empirical research are not explored in depth. Key concepts, such as critical thinking, argumentative writing, and the specific role of online platforms, are mentioned but not thoroughly defined or analyzed in the context of previous studies. Additionally, while some references are cited, the connections between these studies and the current research are not clearly articulated, leaving gaps in understanding how this study builds upon or diverges from prior work.

It is recommended: The literature review was not carried out in depth. A more detailed literature review with critical analysis would enhance the theoretical grounding and situate the research more effectively within its academic context.

 

The research design, questions, and hypotheses are presented but lack clarity and precision in some areas. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, which is briefly described; however, the rationale for choosing this design and integrating quantitative and qualitative methods are not sufficiently detailed. The research questions are stated but could benefit from more specificity to align tightly with the study's objectives. For example, the phrasing of the questions could explicitly address the variables being measured and the anticipated outcomes. The hypotheses are mentioned but are not framed as testable statements, which is essential for guiding the analysis and interpretation of results. Additionally, while the methods are outlined, including pre-and post-tests and comparing experimental and control groups, the descriptions of instruments, data collection, and analysis processes need further elaboration to ensure replicability and transparency.

It is recommended that the methodology section be rewritten and structured appropriately to address the above observations. Authors should clearly write the research questions and hypotheses and relate them to the study variables.

 

The arguments and discussion of findings demonstrate some coherence and alignment with the study's objectives, but they lack depth. While the discussion highlights key results, such as the impact of Zoom debates on critical thinking, social interaction, and argumentative writing skills, the interpretation of these findings is surface-level. For instance, the article emphasizes statistical significance without thoroughly exploring the practical implications or contextual factors influencing these results. Moreover, the discussion could be more balanced by critically addressing limitations, such as sample size, potential biases, or challenges associated with the online learning environment. The inclusion of opposing perspectives or alternative interpretations would strengthen the argumentation. Additionally, while the findings are presented as compelling, the connection between results and broader educational implications or related works mentioned in the Literature Review section is underdeveloped.

Therefore, it is recommended that a more precise and critically reflective discussion be written to enhance the arguments' quality and impact significantly.

 

The results of the study are presented with the use of tables, figures, and statistical tests, which contribute to clarity. However, there are areas where the presentation could be enhanced for better comprehension. While the statistical significance of findings is reported, the discussion around the results often lacks sufficient detail to contextualize their meaning and relevance. For example, the tables provide pre-and post-test scores for various skills. However, the narrative explanation does not always clearly interpret or connect these numbers to the research questions and hypotheses. Additionally, the presentation of results would benefit from a more structured approach, ensuring each result is explicitly tied to a specific research question or hypothesis. The visual elements, such as graphs and tables, could be accompanied by more detailed explanations to guide the reader in understanding their implications. Finally, the results section should address any anomalies or unexpected findings that are currently overlooked to provide a comprehensive view of the data.

Therefore, authors are recommended to address the previous observations, present the results in a structured manner, in a logical sequence, and sufficiently analyze each table and figure.

 

The article includes a reasonable number of references to prior studies and foundational texts relevant to the topic (38), which helps provide context and support for the research. However, there are notable gaps in the referencing that limit its adequacy. For example, while the study mentions critical thinking, argumentative writing, and online learning, it does not engage sufficiently with the most recent and influential literature in these areas. Some of the cited sources appear outdated or are not directly related to the core focus of the research, which weakens the theoretical and empirical foundation. Additionally, key claims and interpretations in the discussion section lack proper citation, leaving the reader questioning the source or validity of these statements. 

Authors are recommended to include more updated and diverse sources that cover supporting and contrasting perspectives to improve the references and the article in general. This will positively affect the Introduction, Literature Review, Discussion, and Conclusions sections.

 

The article's conclusions are generally aligned with the results presented, particularly regarding the impact of Zoom debates on students' critical thinking, argumentative writing, and social interaction skills. However, the support provided for these conclusions is not thorough. While statistical results are referenced to justify claims, the analysis connecting the findings to the broader educational implications and theoretical framework is underdeveloped. Moreover, the conclusions overstate the significance of the results without adequately addressing limitations or potential confounding factors, such as sample size, contextual influences, or methodological constraints. Additionally, the article does not effectively leverage secondary literature to reinforce its conclusions or place the findings in a broader academic context.

To improve the conclusions, it is recommended that authors provide a more precise discussion of the results, explicitly linking them to the research questions, hypotheses, objectives, and previous studies. In addition, they should address the study's limitations and suggest directions for future research.

 

While some of the references cited in the manuscript are related to the research topic, many are not directly relevant or sufficiently current to provide a strong foundation for the study. Key concepts such as critical thinking, argumentative writing, and online learning are not supported by an adequate range of recent and authoritative sources. Additionally, some references are tangential to the core focus of the study and fail to engage with the latest advancements or debates in the field. This lack of appropriate and relevant citations undermines the study's academic rigor and ability to position itself within contemporary scholarship.

It is recommended that a broader and more targeted selection of up-to-date references that directly align with the research objectives and findings be integrated into the document.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your precious comments, they are very valuable for me and I am very grateful to your suggestions. I did huge effort to obey your instructions and to modify the work. Here are the comments and responses.

 

I write additional paragraphs for the introduction, and for literature review, I changed the methods of the research, I added the instruments and I included the procedures in the methodology, also I changed all the references and I added the links to open the reference by using it.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s)

Thank you for the changes. You are almost there and wish you all the best.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

i. i modified the introduction, the discussion, and the hypothesis and the questions

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Your article has been submitted for publication in a high-impact journal, whose readership consists of experts in the field. A manuscript submitted to a prestigious journal should be carefully written, with attention to detail, in accordance with the conventions of scientific writing. Additionally, it is important that the graphs are designed clearly and effectively, ensuring that the information is presented in a logical and structured manner. Another key aspect is the reference list, which should be compiled with precision and strictly adhere to the required citation style. This ensures that readers can easily verify the sources cited in the text.

For instance, at line 612: “Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2007). Critical thinking. In: Retrieved.” – This reference appears to be incomplete and should be revised to align with the appropriate citation guidelines.

At this stage, I believe the manuscript would benefit from further refinement to meet the journal's high standards. Unfortunately, my recommendation is not to accept it for publication at this time. However, I encourage you to refine the manuscript, paying close attention to the aspects mentioned above, and wish you success in your future research endeavors.

With kind regards,

A reviewer

Author Response

I changed the introduction , I rewrote the hypothesis  and I added new studies related to the uze of zoom

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research follows a structured methodology, employing a quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-tests, and provides empirical evidence to support its claims. However, several areas require improvement to enhance the study's clarity, rigor, and scholarly contribution. Specifically, while the research questions, hypotheses, and methodology are clearly outlined, the engagement with theoretical frameworks could be strengthened by explicitly linking the findings to social constructivist principles. Additionally, the discussion section, while insightful, could benefit from a deeper critical analysis, acknowledging potential limitations and alternative interpretations of the results rather than focusing exclusively on positive outcomes.

The manuscript's engagement with relevant literature is limited, relying on older sources while lacking more recent studies (within the last five years) on digital learning, online debates, and virtual education platforms. Expanding the literature review to include more contemporary and interdisciplinary sources would enhance the study's relevance and academic impact. The authors should provide more substantial justifications for methodological choices to improve the manuscript, particularly regarding the statistical analyses used.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English throughout the manuscript requires revision to correct grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and inconsistencies in academic tone, which sometimes hinder clarity and readability.

Author Response

I added more studeies that related to the use of zoom. I rewrite the hypothesis again. and i made different modifications

Author Response File: Author Response.docx