The Role of the Ideal L2 Self in the L2 Motivational Self-System for Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis of Moderating Effects and Reliability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major revision

• In line 291, the authors state that “The results of our analysis aligned with those of the previous twenty-five research studies.” This claim is somewhat problematic. As currently phrased, it suggests that the authors conducted an additional empirical study whose results can be directly compared with previous studies. However, it is clear that this is not the case. This statement should therefore possibly reformulated to more accurately reflect the nature of their analysis.
• The authors should be more cautious in formulating their hypotheses. For instance, the statement that “the recent pandemic may have negatively influenced minoritized students because of their socioeconomic circumstances” (lines 306–307) is intuitively plausible, but it is not directly supported by the data presented in the article. As far as can be inferred, the authors do not have access to students’ socioeconomic data. Therefore, this claim should be toned down and more closely grounded in the available evidence. Instead, the authors could focus on describing the observed patterns more precisely: for example, how do the effects change across years? In lines 266–267, they report that “The analysis revealed a statistically significant negative relationship between the reported effect size and year,” but this is a general result. Could post-hoc analyses be conducted to further investigate this pattern, as well as those related to other random effects?
• Among the limitations, the authors should also consider the lack of control for other historical and socio-cultural events occurring between 2010 and 2025 (e.g., wars, economic crises, etc.). Attributing the observed trends primarily to the impact of COVID-19 may be overly restrictive, especially given the absence of year-by-year data that would allow one to determine whether negative effects are concentrated specifically around the pandemic years (i.e., from 2020 onwards).
• The authors included studies conducted in upper-middle-income and high-income countries. However, it is unclear why this variable was not considered as a potential random effect in the analysis. This is particularly relevant given that income-related factors are explicitly mentioned by the authors themselves when discussing the limitations of the study.
• A final point concerns the L2 contexts represented in the selected studies. At the beginning of the article (line 24), the acronym L2 is used to refer to both “second language” and “foreign language.” However, out of the 25 studies included, only two appear to involve L2 learning in contexts where the target language is actually spoken. This imbalance may have implications for the results and should at least be acknowledged and discussed.

Minor revision

• In several instances, previously introduced acronyms are replaced by their full forms. For the sake of consistency, the authors may wish to standardize their usage.
• Table 1 could be made more readable. For instance, removing full justification within the table would improve clarity. Additionally, the “Component” column appears to be redundant, as it contains the same value throughout. Removing it would allow the remaining columns to be wider and easier to read.
• Table 4 is also not particularly reader-friendly and could benefit from improved formatting.
• Kim’s (2012) country is “Korea”: does this refer to both North and South Korea?
• Lines 246–249 appear somewhat redundant and could be either omitted or reformulated.
• Figure 1 is slightly blurred and difficult to read.
• In general, the relevant text should precede the corresponding table, rather than follow it.
• The paragraph in lines 281–288 would be better placed in the Conclusions section, as it reads more like an interpretive summary than a presentation of results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. This study presents a meta-analysis examining the relationship between the Ideal L2 Self within the L2 Motivational Self-System and L2 learning outcomes, incorporating moderators such as year, country, and sample size. Based on 25 studies (N = 9,810), the manuscript reports a statistically significant moderate-to-large correlation (r = .444) and identifies significant moderating effects. The topic is both relevant and timely, particularly in light of ongoing debates concerning the validity of the L2 Motivational Self-System and the influence of contextual factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

That said, several key issues need to be addressed to strengthen the manuscript which we really think has a strong potential.

First, although the literature review is extensive, it remains largely descriptive rather than analytical. The manuscript presents studies with conflicting findings but does not sufficiently synthesize them into clear theoretical tensions or explain how the present meta-analysis advances these debates. For instance, while methodological discussions (e.g., Al-Hoorie et al., 2024 versus Papi & Teimouri, 2024) are introduced, the study is not clearly positioned as a response to these debates. Strengthening the theoretical contribution by explicitly articulating how this study resolves inconsistencies, validates constructs, or refines the L2 Motivational Self-System would significantly improve the manuscript. A more coherent conceptual framework linking the Ideal L2 Self, contextual factors, and learning outcomes is also recommended.

Second, the transparency of the meta-analytic procedures is limited. The methodology section lacks several elements expected in a high-quality meta-analysis, including a clear description of the search strategy (e.g., databases and search strings), a PRISMA-style flow diagram, and details regarding coding procedures, inter-coder reliability, and effect size extraction. Additionally, the inclusion of data from prior meta-analyses raises concerns about potential dependency or double counting of effect sizes. Providing a detailed systematic review protocol, clarifying the independence of included data, and reporting coding reliability would enhance the methodological rigor.

Third, the extremely high heterogeneity reported (I² = 97.64%) presents itself as a major concern that is not sufficiently addressed. Although moderator analyses are conducted, the manuscript does not adequately interpret the implications of this level of variability, nor does it explore additional theoretically relevant moderators (e.g., learner characteristics, proficiency levels, or measurement instruments). A more thorough discussion of heterogeneity and its implications for generalizability and construct validity is necessary.

Fourth, the manuscript occasionally overinterprets findings, particularly in relation to causality and contextual factors. For example, claims about the impact of COVID-19 are inferred from the “Year” moderator without direct operationalization, and socioeconomic interpretations based on broad country-level income categories may be overly generalized. These interpretations should be reframed more cautiously, emphasizing associations rather than causation and acknowledging the limitations of proxy variables.

Fifth, there are conceptual and statistical concerns regarding the meta-regression analysis. The reported intercept value appears implausible for correlation-based models, and the scaling and interpretation of coefficients are unclear. Furthermore, the categorization of countries into broad income groups may oversimplify complex sociocultural differences. Clarifying the model specification, providing interpretable coefficient explanations, and offering stronger justification for moderator coding decisions would improve the analysis.

Sixth, the assessment of publication bias is incomplete. The manuscript relies primarily on fail-safe N statistics, which are insufficient on their own. Including additional diagnostics such as funnel plots, Egger’s regression test, and trim-and-fill analysis would provide a more robust evaluation of potential bias.

In addition to these key concerns, other minor issues should also be addressed to strenghthen the potential of the manuscript. The manuscript would benefit from improvements in language and clarity, as there are instances of awkward phrasing, redundancy, and inconsistent terminology. Professional proofreading is recommended. Structurally, some sections (particularly the Discussion) are repetitive, and the distinction between results and interpretation could be clearer. There are also minor referencing inconsistencies that should be corrected to align with journal guidelines.

Finally, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer articulation of its novel contributions, as many findings confirm existing literature; emphasizing the role of moderators, the reliability debate, and the contextual framing would strengthen its contribution.

Sincerely,
Reviewer

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English is generally understandable; however, it requires improvement to meet the standards of an international journal. There are frequent issues with grammatical accuracy, awkward phrasing, and sentence structure that at times reduce clarity and readability.

For example, some sentences are overly long or unclear, such as: “Our goal is also to understand that relationship with respect to students who might fall under the category of minoritized students” (p. 2), which could be simplified for clarity. Similarly, phrases like “the result of heterogeneity analyses indicates…” (p. 11) reflect awkward grammatical construction and would benefit from revision (e.g., “the results of the heterogeneity analyses indicate…”). There are also instances of redundancy, such as repeated references to “significant” findings without precise qualification, and inconsistent phrasing (e.g., alternating between “L2 learning” and “successful L2 learning” without clear distinction).

In addition, some terminology is used imprecisely or repetitively, and certain expressions are not fully aligned with formal academic style. These issues collectively affect the flow and clarity of the manuscript.

I recommend careful proofreading and editing by a proficient English speaker or a professional academic editing service to improve clarity, conciseness, and overall readability.

     

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a meta-analysis examining the relationship between the Ideal L2 Self within the L2 Motivational Self-System and second language learning, with a focus on moderating variables such as year, country, and sample size. The topic is timely and relevant to the field of second language acquisition, particularly given ongoing debates surrounding the validity and contextual variability of the L2 Motivational Self-System. Overall, the manuscript is clearly structured and addresses an important research question; however, several aspects require substantial clarification and refinement before it can be considered for publication.

Clarity, Structure, and Relevance: The manuscript is generally well-organized, following a conventional empirical structure (introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, conclusion). The topic is clearly relevant to current scholarship, and the paper engages with both foundational and recent research, including studies published within the last five years. The inclusion of contemporary methodological debates strengthens the paper’s relevance. However, the literature review tends to be descriptive rather than analytical. While a wide range of studies is cited, the discussion lacks synthesis and does not clearly articulate how inconsistencies in prior findings motivate the present meta-analysis. The research gap, although implied, should be more explicitly defined and directly linked to the study’s design and research questions. There is no indication of excessive self-citation, and the references appear broadly appropriate and relevant.

Scientific Soundness and Research Design: The study adopts a meta-analytic approach, which is appropriate for addressing inconsistencies in prior empirical findings. The use of a random-effects model, heterogeneity statistics, and meta-regression represents a methodologically sound framework in principle. That said, the transparency and rigor of the research design require improvement. The manuscript does not sufficiently detail the literature search process, inclusion/exclusion procedures, or study selection workflow. For instance, although 82 studies were initially identified, only 25 were included, and the rationale for exclusion is not fully explained. The absence of a PRISMA-style flow diagram limits reproducibility and weakens methodological transparency. Furthermore, the choice of moderators - year, country, and sample size - is only partially justified. The operationalization of “country” as a proxy for socioeconomic context is particularly problematic, as it reduces complex socioeconomic realities to broad income categories and excludes low-income contexts entirely. This limitation should be more explicitly acknowledged and addressed.

Reproducibility and Methods: While the statistical techniques employed are appropriate, the level of methodological detail provided is insufficient to ensure full reproducibility. Key aspects such as database selection, search strings, coding procedures, and inter-rater reliability (if applicable) are not described in enough detail. Additionally, the exclusion of grey literature (e.g., dissertations and theses) may introduce publication bias, yet this decision is not adequately justified beyond general concerns about quality.

Results and Data Presentation: The results are presented clearly, with appropriate reporting of effect sizes, confidence intervals, and heterogeneity statistics. The inclusion of a forest plot and meta-regression analysis is appropriate and enhances the transparency of the findings. However, several issues require attention. First, the reported heterogeneity is extremely high (I² ≈ 97.6%), indicating substantial variability across studies. While this justifies the use of a random-effects model, the manuscript does not sufficiently explore or explain the sources of this heterogeneity. Second, some statistical outputs (e.g., regression coefficients such as the intercept) are not clearly interpreted, which may confuse readers. The publication bias analysis is a positive inclusion, but its interpretation is somewhat overstated. The use of fail-safe N statistics alone is not sufficient to claim that the results are “highly reliable,” and additional methods (e.g., funnel plots) would strengthen this section. Overall, the tables and figures are appropriate and generally easy to interpret, though the discussion of the data could be more cautious and precise. 

Interpretation and Discussion: The discussion successfully connects the findings to prior research and highlights the importance of contextual factors in L2 motivation. The consideration of the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential impact on learners is a valuable contribution. However, the manuscript occasionally overextends its claims. In particular, it suggests that socioeconomic circumstances significantly affect the Ideal L2 Self, despite relying on country-level income categories as a proxy rather than directly measuring socioeconomic variables. Similarly, causal language (e.g., “influence” or “impact”) is used in contexts where only correlational relationships have been established. The discussion of methodological debates surrounding the L2 Motivational Self-System is insightful but somewhat overstated in its conclusions. Given the high heterogeneity and limited moderator scope, claims regarding the validation of the L2MSS should be presented more cautiously. 

Conclusions: The conclusions are generally aligned with the reported results but tend to overgeneralize the findings. While the meta-analysis does support a statistically significant relationship between the Ideal L2 Self and L2 learning, broader claims regarding socioeconomic effects and methodological validity are not fully supported by the data presented. The implications for educators are relevant but would benefit from a more measured and evidence-based framing.

Ethics and Data Availability: The manuscript does not clearly include statements regarding ethics or data availability. While this is a meta-analysis and may not require ethical approval in the traditional sense, a brief statement clarifying this would improve transparency. Similarly, information about data availability (e.g., coding sheets or extracted datasets) would enhance reproducibility.

Overall Assessment and Recommendation: In summary, this manuscript addresses an important and relevant topic and employs an appropriate methodological approach. Its strengths include a solid theoretical foundation, engagement with recent literature, and clear presentation of statistical results. However, there are several significant limitations, particularly in terms of methodological transparency, interpretation of findings, and the strength of the conclusions drawn. To improve the manuscript, the authors should:

• Clarify and strengthen the research gap and theoretical contribution

• Provide a more transparent and detailed description of the study selection and data extraction process

• Justify and refine the choice of moderators, particularly the use of country as a proxy for socioeconomic context

• Address the very high heterogeneity more thoroughly

• Avoid overinterpretation and causal language in discussing results

• Temper claims regarding reliability and validity

• Include statements on ethics and data availability

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable and conveys its main ideas clearly; however, the quality of English would benefit from improvement. There are instances of awkward phrasing, repetition, and minor grammatical inconsistencies that occasionally affect clarity and readability. Some sentences are overly long or imprecise, particularly in the literature review and discussion sections. A careful language revision, ideally by a proficient academic English speaker or professional editing service, is recommended to enhance clarity, conciseness, and overall readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am very happy with the corrections made by the author. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your efforts. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable and conveys its main ideas clearly; however, the quality of English would benefit from improvement. There are instances of awkward phrasing, repetition, and minor grammatical inconsistencies that occasionally affect clarity and readability. Some sentences are overly long or imprecise, particularly in the literature review and discussion sections. A careful language revision, ideally by a proficient academic English speaker or professional editing service, is recommended to enhance clarity, conciseness, and overall readability.