Mobile Technology and Generation Z in the English Language Classroom—A Preliminary Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See the text enclosed
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached file about our answers and modifications, which have been also highlighted in the main manuscript. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I accept the revised article in present form.
Author Response
No action is required from the authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please find attached my comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached file about our answers and modifications, which have been also highlighted in the main manuscript. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The final version of the article clearly shows that the authors have made sufficient efforts to take into account the previous comments and imrove the text. As the content will be of great interest to potential readers, I eventually recommend the article for publication. Though I still claim that the experimental part of the research needs further study. to provide more reliable data.
Reviewer 3 Report
I think after all the corrections and your interest in this manuscript, I think this manuscript is suitable for publication. Even though, I do not feel the experiment and its results are relevant; at least they are managed and presented correctly.
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
General Lines:
I am afraid that this piece of research is not suitable for publication in this journal for different reasons as it is explained below. One of the major flows is that the experiment is quite superficial due to the limited amount of participants. In addition, the discussion does not seem to justify or explain any new finding, but it introduces new literature instead. From my humble perspective, this piece of research needs further development and improvement to be published in an academic journal.
Literature Review
Section “2.1 Different generation, different learning preference” is an excellent description of the previous generations; however, I am afraid it is not relevant to explain how all the previous generations in the XX century learned. I would definitely summarize this section by justifying that previous generations to the Z one were different, and I would recommend adding this information as introductory in the following section: 2.2. Who is the fifth generation?
I also need to emphasize that the author does not refer to existing approaches such as Mobile Assisted learning and the derived ones. It could perhaps be a good idea to introduce this idea in the literature review. Some relevant bibliography:
Bachore, M. M. (2015). Language learning through mobile technologies: an opportunity for language learners and teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 6 (31), 50-53.
Duman, G., Orhon, G., & Gedik, N. (2015). Research trends in mobile assisted language learning from 2000 to 2012. ReCALL, 27 (2), 197-216.
Leis, A., Tohei, A., & Cooke, S. D. (2015). Smartphone assisted language learning and autonomy. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 5 (3), 75-88.
In addition, the research does not introduce previous case studies in which Kahoot or similar applications had been used. See a Scholar Google Search on this topic: https://bit.ly/2JYZS2s
Results
Results are quite superficial and in addition, it seems difficult to prove that with a group of 20 students (10 experimental + 10 control) results are reliable.
Discusion
This section continuously introduces new literature rather than justifying the results or discussing the author’s ideas in an attempt to explain why students using mobile devices in the FL classroom scored higher than the control group. These prior cases should have been previously mentioned in the literature review. The author also refers to his/her limitations in this section, and this should be part of the conclusion.
Line 324
was more fun à was funnier
Reviewer 2 Report
I would suggest rewording of the research question: Is implementation of mobile devices in language learning process effective?
My suggestion: Is implementation of mobile devices in foreign language learning process useful/productive?
Reviewer 3 Report
The purpose of the author is to describe how to use Kahoot in the foreign language classroom to enhance the students` vocabulary proficiency level, keepng in mind the Generation Z characteristics of learners and the principles of constructivist learning theory. The subject of the study is not new. The problem, as we see it, lies either in the foreign language teachers` reluctance or unawareness of how to use this mobile tool in the classroom. Therefore, it is significant to convince techers of the advantages of the app and suggest applicable and useful techniques for that.
The profound description of the digital natives` features provided in the article shows that the author is well aware of both the strengths and weaknesses of the new generation of learners that may be beneficial, on the one hand, or cause problems for educators on the other. As the author concludes, one possible way to meet the students` needs is integration of mobile devices into teaching and learning foreign languages.
The description of the experimental part of the study arouses a few questions as well as comments which reduce the reliability of the findings of the study. .
Firstly, an obvious downside of the study is a small subject sample and a short intervention period (two lessons) which are also mentioned by the author (lines 361-362).
Secondly, we spotted two discrepancies in the text: 1) concerning the number of the participants in the study (line 57 - 14 students; line 240 - 20 students); 2) concerning one of the conclusions drawn by the author (see lines 362-364) where the meaning of two adjacent sentences runs contrary to each other (why did the experimental group need more practice time while it was the control group that was "disadvantaged"?).
Thirdly, the descriptions of the activities that the students did in-between the pre-test and post-test in both groups are not detailed enough to make readers completely sure of the unquestinable advantages of the mobile app Kahoot over some other techniques and tools in learning foreign language vocabulary. We get to know from the article that In the experimental group the participants did a multiple choice question and answer quiz and then answered a few questions on the topic (lines 275-279). In the control group they were asked to read and explain the new words with the help of the dictionary, then they"finished the exercises in the textbook and workbook" (lines 285-288). The author defines this approach as "traditional" (line 285). The article does not explain what this definition implies, because the understanding of traditional teaching methods can vary in different countries and even institutions. If we closely look into the tasks offered to the students from the experimental group, we can also define them as very traditional (answering questions). It is highly likely that had the students in the control group done some other tasks, they would have achieved much better results than they did. We do not know exactly because the article does not explain clearly. Therefore, we cannot fully agree that the critical factor that allowed the students in the experimental group to retain the vocabulary better is related to the use of the mobile app. What really matters in learning, among a great variety of factors, is the activities that students use in their learning to construct their personal experiences.
The outcomes demonstrated by the students in both groups are not very different. Similarly, the answers in the questionnaire (10 respondents) show that the opinions in the experimental group are not unanimous either.
Nobody would argue that it does not make sense to integrate mobile apps into foreign language teaching and learning. Our students have been using them actively already for a wide variety of goals. Researchers have already been investigating the issue from different angles, and the use of Kahoot platform as well. Unfortunately, the lit of the References does not contain any papers on the topic.
We realise that the article contains the results of the preliminary study of the issue. We assume that the author needs more time and reserach work to present more reliable results and conclusions.
