Foreign Language Learning Environment and Communicative Competence Development in Kazakhstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an interesting topic concerning the improvement of English language learning in higher education in Kazakhstan. Following scientific research, the authors demonstrate something that is obvious and well known in the field of foreign language learning: a stimulating FLLE leads to much greater progress in learning a foreign language than an austere, demotivating environment lacking in teaching and technological resources.

However, we make the following observations and recommendations, which may contribute to improving the quality of the work and increase its level of originality, helping it to stand out in the extremely dense and eclectic field of scientific research in the area addressed (see Attachment)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The reviewer requests clearer contextualization of the research, particularly regarding the status of English in Kazakhstan and the specificity of the EFL context.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have substantially revised the Introduction to provide a clearer sociolinguistic and educational context of Kazakhstan, emphasizing the status of English as a compulsory foreign language in higher education and the limited opportunities for authentic communicative practice beyond the classroom. These revisions clarify that the study is situated within an EFL rather than an ESL context.
The changes can be found in the revised manuscript in Section 1 (Introduction), paragraphs 1–4.

Comment 2: The literature review lacks a clear definition of the foreign language learning environment (FLLE) and justification for the selected components.
Response 2: We agree. Accordingly, we have revised the Literature Review to provide a clearer conceptualization of FLLE as a multidimensional construct and to justify the selection of the four core components (pedagogical resources, physical learning environment, motivational strategies, and ICT integration). We also clarified that social and interpersonal factors are embedded within pedagogical and motivational dimensions rather than treated as separate components.
These changes are presented in Section 2 (Literature Review), paragraphs 1–3.

Comment 3: The reviewer recommends strengthening the theoretical grounding of foreign language communicative competence (FLCC).
Response 3: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded the theoretical framework of FLCC by grounding the study more explicitly in interactionist and communicative language teaching traditions. Key theoretical models of communicative competence are now more clearly integrated into the discussion.
The revisions can be found in Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 2 (Literature Review).

Comment 4: More detailed methodological information is required.
Response 4: We agree with this comment. The Materials and Methods section has been expanded to include detailed information on participants, instructional conditions, duration of the intervention, assessment procedures, and exposure to English beyond the classroom. In addition, ethical considerations (informed consent, anonymity, and confidentiality) have been explicitly stated.
These changes appear in Section 3 (Materials and Methods), particularly Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

For the reviewers’ convenience, all revisions made in response to the reviewers’ comments have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your thoughtful work on improving EFL environments in Kazakhstan. Your integration of pedagogical, physical, motivational, and digital components is promising, and the manuscript presents encouraging results that address a real educational need.

To strengthen the scientific impact of your study, it would be helpful to include clear evidence of reliability and validity for your test and speaking rubric, such as inter-rater agreement, alignment with CEFR standards, and brief examples of assessment tasks ( see my comments on the manuscript). The results section would also benefit from inferential statistics for the post-test so that claims of effectiveness rest on statistical evidence rather than averages alone, and the conclusion could present findings more cautiously rather than suggesting proof.

In addition, strengthening the reference list will greatly support your argument. Some policy documents and older sources are currently treated as if they provide empirical evidence, and a few links are incomplete or come from platforms that do not represent peer-reviewed research. At the same time, recent research on digital and AI-supported language learning is missing even though it is central to your intervention. Updating the reference base, replacing non-academic or unverifiable links, and ensuring consistent formatting will reinforce the credibility of your work. Your study has real value, and these revisions will significantly enhance its contribution to the field and help communicate its importance more powerfully.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally readable and the ideas are communicated clearly, but the writing would benefit from language polishing to improve accuracy, consistency, and flow. There are frequent issues with punctuation, spacing, verb tense consistency, article use, and sentence structure, including occasional literal or awkward phrasing. Some terms are repeated unnecessarily or used inconsistently (such as ELLE and FLLE), and several sentences are overly long or include grammatical errors that obscure meaning. Minor formatting issues also appear in tables and percentage notation. A careful copyediting process will help ensure clarity, coherence, and academic tone throughout the manuscript without altering the intended meaning.

Author Response

Comment 1: The abstract should clearly articulate the research gap, methodology, and practical implications.
Response 1: We agree. The Abstract has been revised to explicitly state the research gap related to limited authentic English communication in EFL contexts, outline the quasi-experimental design, and highlight the practical implications of the findings for higher education.
The revised text can be found in the Abstract section of the manuscript.

Comment 2: The Discussion section should be strengthened by linking findings to theory and previous research.
Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the Discussion section to focus on interpretative analysis rather than repetition of results. The findings are now explicitly linked to relevant theoretical frameworks and previous empirical studies, highlighting the contribution of the integrated FLLE model.
These revisions are located in Section 5 (Discussion).

Comment 3: The manuscript should explicitly address limitations and implications.
Response 3: We agree with this comment. The Conclusions section now explicitly acknowledges the study’s limitations (sample size and single institutional context) and outlines directions for future research, as well as practical implications for higher education institutions in comparable EFL settings.
These changes can be found in Section 6 (Conclusions).

For the reviewers’ convenience, all revisions made in response to the reviewers’ comments have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

        I believe the paper makes a worthwhile contribution to the existing literature on the critical role of environment to communicative competence as it assesses the effectiveness of the components of English language learning environment (ELLE) in the development of foreign language communication competence of students in a Kazakhstani higher education institution. The paper is generally well written and  scholarly; however, the following aspects and sections need to be revisited to improve its overall readability and rigor:   

1. In the Abstract section, the researcher(s) may revise it to include essential elements like an introduction, which briefly states the gap that the study intends to address, as well as the practical implications of the study’s findings to a particular academic or professional community to indicate the study’s beneficial use;   
2. In the Introduction section, the researcher(s) may highlight how English proficiency not only becomes an indicator of competitiveness and intellectual mobility, but also how it affects other education systems of the world to show comparison between the countries mentioned and Kazakhstan. It can be noted that there is an immediate shift from declaring English as a global lingua franca to the concerning situation in Kazakhstan;
3. In the Literature Review section, the researcher(s) may include a brief discussion about communicative competence, which may include emphasis not only on its development in foreign language classrooms but also in classrooms where the students are native speakers of English to show notable differences;       
4. In the Materials and Methods section, the researcher(s) may include a brief discussion on the processes being undertaken to ensure strict compliance with ethical standards, as it has been noted that the study involved human beings as subjects. In addition, they may include another discussion on the tools used and/or procedures followed in the proper collection, analysis, and interpretation of data;
5. In the Discussion section, the researcher(s) may provide more comprehensive discussion of the salient findings by providing corroborating findings of similar or related studies, or the essential concepts that may relate to the said findings. In addition, they may relate the findings to the theory/ies being initially considered in the study to show whether they firmly support or refute these findings;
6. In the Conclusions section, the researcher(s) may highlight the limitations of the study, especially on the generalizability of the results considering that only few students were involved in the experiment. Moreover, they may add implications of the study’s findings to a specific academic or professional community to show its relevance or beneficial use to such community;
7. In the References section, the researcher(s) must follow the referencing system prescribed by the journal. They may also ensure correspondence between those authors/literature cited in the main text and the entries corresponding to them in this section. They may also provide online links to these sources if available. Further, they must consider more recent sources (at least 5-10 years back) to improve the recency of this paper; and
8. The paper contains several issues, such as grammar, formatting, spacing, etc., that may affect the paper's overall readability It is recommended that the researcher/s may seek assistance from a language/technical expert to address these inconsistencies.

Author Response

Comment 1: The reviewer finds the manuscript valuable but suggests improving clarity, coherence, and readability.
Response 1: Thank you for this positive assessment. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve clarity and coherence by removing redundant passages, improving transitions between sections, and refining language accuracy throughout the text.
Revisions were made across all sections of the manuscript, with particular attention to the Introduction, Literature Review, and Discussion.

Comment 2: Consistency with journal formatting and referencing guidelines should be ensured.
Response 2: We agree. All in-text citations and references have been revised to comply fully with the journal’s formatting guidelines. Additional recent sources were included where appropriate, and consistency between in-text citations and the reference list was ensured.
These changes are reflected in the References section and throughout the manuscript.

We appreciate the reviewer's time and efforts. For the reviewers’ convenience, all revisions made in response to the reviewers’ comments have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your references - in-text and reference list - require much greater attention.

Please review attentivly the references according to www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions#references

Journal Articles:
Author, A. A. (Date). Title of the journal article: Subtitle. Journal Title, Volume(Issue), Firstpage–Lastpage/Article Number. https://doi.org/DOI.

instead of

 ex. (Ahmad et al., 2017) Ahmad, C., Nidzam, C., & Nurul, A. (2017). The effect of the physical learning environment on students’ 374 health, enjoyment and learning. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 7(1), 47-55. 375 https://doi.org/10.37134/jpsmm.vol7.no1.4.2017

ex. Line234 (Erbaggio, 2012, Mohammed, 2021 Mandarsari, 2023)

missinge reference for State Compulsory Standard of Higher Education (SCSHE)

 

Author Response

Comment 1:  Your references - in-text and reference list - require much greater attention.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important comment. The entire reference list and all in-text citations have now been carefully revised and reformatted in accordance with the MDPI Education Sciences reference guidelines. Journal article entries have been standardized to include full bibliographic information, page ranges or article numbers, and DOI links where available.

Comment 2:  ex. (Ahmad et al., 2017) Ahmad, C., Nidzam, C., & Nurul, A. (2017). The effect of the physical learning environment on students’ 374 health, enjoyment and learning. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 7(1), 47-55. 375

Response 2: As for the crossed-out author names in the Reference list, we would like to clarify that we were guided by the journal template (see attached). The author names have been corrected and the reference list has been revised to fully comply with the journal’s formatting requirements.

Comment 3: missinge reference for State Compulsory Standard of Higher Education (SCSHE)

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer and included a reference to the Standard. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your meticulous revisions. I have noticed that you have not heeded some of my feedback, for example, revising your title. Please refer back to my previous comments and provide an explanation (justification) about not addressing some of my concerns. You are using too much Gen AI language, which makes it too general, without revealing much meaningful information. You need to provide more information and evidence about your intervention and what ELLE really involves. Seemy comments on the file.(Please upload a separate file to explain what you have revised and why not, i.e. the reasons for not addressing my concerns).

Also, read your manuscript thoroughly and check it for grammatical accuracy. (I noticed a tense error).   Most importantly, your citation 33 is completely FALSE. There is no such publication. Please provide the full doi links for all of your references, where applicable. Check and verify all of your sources.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofread your manuscript again. ( Also make sure you remove AI-generated superficial and overly general & repetitive sections).

Author Response

Comment 1:  I have noticed that you have not heeded some of my feedback, for example, revising your title. 

Response 1: Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. We have adjusted the title of the paper as follows: Foreign Language Learning Environment and Communicative Competence Development in Kazakhstan

Comment 2:  You are using too much Gen AI language, which makes it too general, without revealing much meaningful information. 

Response 2: Thank you for raising this concern. We would like to clarify that generative AI tools were not used to produce or generate the manuscript content. AI-based tools were employed solely for English-language proofreading and grammatical refinement, while all conceptualization, analysis, interpretation of results, and academic writing were carried out by the authors. Following the reviewer’s comment, we additionally revised the manuscript to reduce generalized formulations and to increase methodological and empirical specificity.

Comment 3: provide more information and evidence about your intervention and what ELLE really involves.

Response 3: The description of what the foreign language learning environment involved in practice is provided in Section 3.3 (Intervention structure). This section specifies the concrete instructional actions implemented in the experimental group, including the modification of four FLLE components (pedagogical resources, physical environment, motivational strategies, and ICT integration), the application of Backward Design principles, the introduction of a newly developed communicative textbook, classroom redesign, the organization of weekly English Club sessions, and the structured use of conversational AI (ChatGPT) as a speaking partner, evaluator, and discussion moderator. These elements together constitute the ELLE intervention examined in the study.

Comment 4: Also, read your manuscript thoroughly and check it for grammatical accuracy. (I noticed a tense error). Most importantly, your citation 33 is completely FALSE. There is no such publication. Please provide the full doi links for all of your references, where applicable. Check and verify all of your sources.

Response 4: Thank you for drawing our attention to these important issues. The manuscript has been carefully proofread to ensure grammatical accuracy and tense consistency. During this revision, the entire text was rechecked for potential tense inconsistencies, and consistent tense usage has been ensured throughout the manuscript.

Regarding Reference 33, we would like to clarify that the work was cited based on its mention in another peer-reviewed publication (Zhumatayeva et al., 2024). Upon re-examination, we agree that the original publication could not be independently verified. To ensure full bibliographic accuracy and transparency, the indirect reference has been removed, and the citation has been replaced with the verifiable secondary source in which the concept was originally discussed. All in-text citations have been revised accordingly.

Furthermore, all references have now been systematically checked and verified using authoritative academic databases. All references have full DOI links where applicable. Sources without DOIs contain URLs as well.

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful attention to the accuracy and reliability of the references.