Digital Drama-Based Interventions in Emergency Remote Teaching: Enhancing Bilingual Literacy and Psychosocial Support During Polycrisis
, Emmanouil Pikoulis 1, Maria Kladaki 2, Anastasia Pikouli 1, Evika Karamagioli 1 and Despoina Papantoniou 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author
Congratulations, you have successfully submitted your article to this journal. We have reviewed your article and highlighted several important notes in the PDF version of the manuscript. Please read, understand, and revise your article according to the suggestions we have provided.
(p.19): It might be necessary to add what the inferential implications of this study's findings are for teachers or educational staff, as well as for users of academic personnel.
(p.162): The COVID-19 case has passed; explain the relevance of this research for the future, considering that the pandemic is over and such conditions are unlikely to occur again.
(p.259): It would be very helpful if the discussion of qualitative data collection methods were separated based on the research questions (1, 2, 3) that were formulated in the introduction above. Having a subtopic for each research question would make it easier for readers to understand how data was collected for each specific question
(p.325): The research findings should ideally be presented in the order of the research questions (as formulated in the introduction), so that the structure of the data presentation is easier for readers to understand. It may be helpful to add subtopic 6.1 for Research Question 1, and so on
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
It might be necessary to add what the inferential implications of this study's findings are for teachers or educational staff, as well as for users of academic personnel.
Response:
Thank you for your observation. We have revised the Conclusions of the abstract to include a brief statement highlighting the practical implications of our findings for teachers and school leaders, as suggested.
Comment:
The COVID-19 case has passed; explain the relevance of this research for the future, considering that the pandemic is over and such conditions are unlikely to occur again.
Response:
Thank you for this comment. We have revised the text to clarify that the study’s insights are not limited to the pandemic period, but are relevant for educational practice during any future disruption, be it a public health emergency, environmental disaster, or other crisis affecting schools.
Comment:
It would be very helpful if the discussion of qualitative data collection methods were separated based on the research questions (1, 2, 3) that were formulated in the introduction above. Having a subtopic for each research question would make it easier for readers to understand how data was collected for each specific question.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. We have structured the Discussion into separate sub-sections, each dedicated to one of the research questions.
Comment:
The research findings should ideally be presented in the order of the research questions (as formulated in the introduction), so that the structure of the data presentation is easier for readers to understand. It may be helpful to add subtopic 6.1 for Research Question 1, and so on
Response:
Thank you for your suggestion. The Results section is presented as a unified whole because the categories and codes emerged through a theory-driven thematic analysis (based on the Theory of Planned Behavior) and not as pre-assigned groups by research question. In addition, the findings are organized in descending order of frequency in the tables, reflecting the relative importance of each theme as they arose from the data. It is also important to note that we aimed to provide an integrated perspective, as the results are synthesized from three different sources of qualitative data: a) 37 teacher interviews, b) 37 student interviews, and c) 85 teacher reflection journals. For this reason, dividing the section into further sub-sections would not align with the analytical approach or the structure of the findings, and could lead to unnecessary repetition or fragmentation of the results.
Comment:
The discussion of the research findings should ideally be presented in the order of the research questions (as formulated in the introduction), so that the structure of the discussion is easier for readers to understand. It may be helpful to add subtopic 6.1 for the discussion of Research Question 1, and so on.
Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. Done. The Discussion is now divided by research question.
Comment:
It might also be better if this paragraph (lines 555-571) is moved to the final section of the paper, under point 9.
Response:
Thank you for your suggestion. Following Reviewer 2’s recommendation, the limitations and directions for future research are now presented as a separate sub-section within the Discussion.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article is already well-presented and well-structured. The only room for improvement is that the author should improve the contextual analysis of the study in the discussion section. Contextual analysis is key in qualitative studies so the authors should make sure that this manuscript's Greece contextual analysis is present and relevant to the current literature.
Refer to my comments before.
Author Response
Comment:
The only room for improvement is that the author should improve the contextual analysis of the study in the discussion section. Contextual analysis is key in qualitative studies so the authors should make sure that this manuscript's Greece contextual analysis is present and relevant to the current literature.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. We have revised the Discussion section to include a brief analysis of the Greek context, emphasizing the specific defficulties and support mechanisms experienced by teachers during emergency remote teaching, in line with relevant recent literature.
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic: the use of digital drama-based methods to support bilingual literacy and psychosocial well-being during emergency remote teaching in a context of polycrisis. The study is grounded in a participatory action research framework and provides rich qualitative data from 37 English language teachers.
The introduction offers useful context, but would benefit from a clearer theoretical definition of polycrisis and stronger positioning within current debates on emotional and multisensory literacy. Some redundancies could be reduced, and the rationale of the study more clearly distinguished from prior work.
The methodological section is detailed and appropriate, though the total number of student participants is missing, and the sampling strategy remains unclear. More transparency in the analysis (e.g., example items or categories, link to Ajzen’s belief types) would enhance the study’s rigor.
The discussion and conclusions are structured, yet somewhat repetitive. There is limited critical interpretation of qualitative tensions or contradictions. The originality of the findings could be more clearly articulated, and implications for policy or teacher education further developed.
The formal aspects are mostly solid: references are relevant but excessive (141 total) and could be streamlined. Theoretical grounding could be expanded with key authors in arts education and bilingual pedagogy (e.g., Eisner, Cummins, Giroux). The English is serviceable but requires careful editing for syntax, grammar, and clarity. Tables should be restructured for conciseness.
Overall, this is a valuable contribution that needs focused revision in theoretical framing, methodological transparency, critical analysis, and language clarity.
First of all, congratulations to the team — conducting research in these times is no easy task.
Introduction
The introduction provides a solid overview of the pandemic context and the concept of "polycrisis". The use of drama-based methods in bilingual education is well justified. However, some ideas are repeated, and there is no clear definition of “polycrisis” based on a theoretical framework (e.g., Morin or IPCC, if applicable).
The term reading literacy appears in the research questions and objectives, but the cognitive impact of digital media on L2 reading skills is not explored in depth (see for example: https://doi.org/10.24310/isl.2.18.2023.16655 — I do not know the authors and this is not one of my references).
It may be advisable to condense paragraphs 1 and 2. It would also be helpful to clarify what differentiates this research from previous studies, beyond the digital drama approach. Positioning the study within current debates on emotional literacy or multisensory approaches in crisis contexts would strengthen the introduction.
Method
The methodological section is rich and detailed. The choice of an action research approach is appropriate given the participatory nature of the study. I will not advocate for quantitative methods as the only valid approach. Still, there is room for improvement.
For example, the small number of participants should be better justified. The study involved 37 English language teachers and their students, but the total number of students is not specified. It is also unclear whether the sample was intentional or representative. Additionally, if the project took place in the 2020–2021 academic year, why is it being submitted now? Data of this kind age quickly.
Regarding the instruments, the reflective diaries and interviews are well described, but an example of a guiding question or an emergent category would enhance the transparency of the thematic analysis.
The use of ATLAS.ti and double coding is a strength. However, a short explanation of how the coded categories connect with Ajzen’s three belief types would be welcome. A table with sample quotations (translated into English if needed) for each belief type — behavioural, normative, and control — would greatly improve clarity.
Discussion and Conclusions
This section is well structured, and Ajzen’s framework helps interpret teacher perceptions. However, there is a tendency to restate findings rather than analyse them critically. Could generative AI tools have been used? If so, a revision is advisable to avoid that impression.
The argument would benefit from further problematisation of the qualitative data. For instance, even if teachers expressed satisfaction, is there evidence of cognitive dissonance? What tensions arose between initial beliefs and the lived experience during implementation?
The study's limitations are acknowledged but briefly. The lack of quantitative data could be discussed more deeply, especially regarding measurable improvements in literacy. Is this a matter of subjectivity?
The final conclusion could better summarise the originality of the approach and offer more specific suggestions for educational policy or teacher training.
Formal Aspects
The references are up to date and relevant. However, there is some imbalance between empirical and theoretical sources. It would be beneficial to incorporate more theoretical literature on arts education, critical literacy, or bilingual pedagogy, beyond Ajzen’s framework.
For example, authors such as Eisner (arts as forms of knowledge), Cummins (bilingualism and empowerment), or Giroux (critical pedagogy in crisis contexts) could strengthen the theoretical foundation.
The English used is functional but contains frequent grammatical and syntactic errors that need revision before publication. For example:
- “This period was also combined with concurrent crises...” → better: “This period also coincided with concurrent crises.”
- “This action, was not only a reaction...” → the comma is unnecessary.
Additionally, redundant expressions such as emergency remote response and drama-based instruction should be reduced, and overly long sentences simplified for clarity.
Although an extra table has been suggested, the existing ones are too segmented and extensive for the main text. Consider merging or simplifying them.
Author Response
Comment:
The introduction provides a solid overview of the pandemic context and the concept of "polycrisis". The use of drama-based methods in bilingual education is well justified. However, some ideas are repeated, and there is no clear definition of “polycrisis” based on a theoretical framework (e.g., Morin or IPCC, if applicable).
Response:
Thank you for this remark. The introduction was revised to include a clear, theory-based definition of “polycrisis” as articulated by Morin (1999), emphasizing the interconnected and compounding nature of multiple crises.
Comment:
The term reading literacy appears in the research questions and objectives, but the cognitive impact of digital media on L2 reading skills is not explored in depth (see for example: https://doi.org/10.24310/isl.2.18.2023.16655 - I do not know the authors and this is not one of my references).
Response:
Thank you for your thoughtful observation. In response, we have included a brief addition at the end of Section 2 to acknowledge the cognitive aspects of L2 reading development in digital environments. However, we opted not to expand this section further, as a more in-depth discussion might shift the focus of the article away from its central objective (the role of digital drama-based interventions in promoting bilingual literacy and psychosocial support during polycrisis). We believe that Section 3 ("Emergency Remote Response for Reading Skills Development During Crisis Periods") sufficiently addresses critical issues related to reading under emergency conditions. Additionally, we appreciate the suggested reference, but unfortunately, due to the language barrier (Spanish), we were unable to evaluate it.
Comment:
It would also be helpful to clarify what differentiates this research from previous studies, beyond the digital drama approach. Positioning the study within current debates on emotional literacy or multisensory approaches in crisis contexts would strengthen the introduction.
Response:
Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We incorporated a short addition at the end of section 3 to emphasize how our research contributes to current theoretical discussions on emotional literacy and multisensory pedagogies in times of crisis. While the focus remains on bilingual literacy and psychosocial support during polycrisis, we acknowledge the value of connecting our findings with wider educational debates.
Comment:
The study involved 37 English language teachers and their students, but the total number of students is not specified.
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to methodological detail. However, we would like to clarify that the number of student participants is indeed specified in the manuscript. As stated in Section 5.3: “At the end of this process, qualitative data was collected from: a) 37 teacher interviews, b) 37 student interviews, and c) 85 teacher reflection journals.” Therefore, qualitative data were collected from 37 students, in a 1:1 correspondence with the 37 participating teachers. As also noted in Section 5.1, these student–teacher pairs were selected from a broader pool of participants involved in a nationwide university research and educational program. To address the reviewer’s concern more explicitly, we have slightly revised the relevant sentence in Section 5.1 to clarify that the selection was conducted in a random and purposive manner, ensuring both theoretical relevance and sufficient representation from the original sample. Furthermore, it should be noted that the nature of the study, being based on action research, and the qualitative field of inquiry do not require statistical generalizability but aim at depth, contextual interpretation, and experiential insight.
Comment:
It is also unclear whether the sample was intentional or representative.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In Section 5.1, we now clarify that the specific cases included in our study were purposively and partly randomly selected from a larger participant pool involved in a nationwide university-based educational program. This mixed sampling strategy was adopted to ensure both theoretical alignment with the aims of the study (i.e., the inclusion of teachers working with emergent bilingual students) and broader representativeness of the initial participant list. Given the qualitative and action research orientation of the study, our focus was on depth, contextual relevance, and practical insight, rather than statistical generalizability.
Comment:
Additionally, if the project took place in the 2020–2021 academic year, why is it being submitted now? Data of this kind age quickly.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this observation. While the data were collected during the 2020-2021 academic year, the topic remains highly relevant, particularly in light of ongoing discussions about the role of digital drama-based interventions in remote and hybrid teaching environments. The process of transcribing, double-coding, and analyzing a large volume of qualitative data required significant time and methodological rigor. Furthermore, similar studies using pandemic-era data continue to be published internationally, reflecting the enduring significance of educational responses to crises.
Comment:
Regarding the instruments, the reflective diaries and interviews are well described, but an example of a guiding question or an emergent category would enhance the transparency of the thematic analysis.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have added indicative examples of guiding questions used in the student and teacher interviews, as well as sample categories that emerged from the reflective diaries (Section 5.2.).
Comment:
The use of ATLAS.ti and double coding is a strength. However, a short explanation of how the coded categories connect with Ajzen’s three belief types would be welcome. A table with sample quotations (translated into English if needed) for each belief type -behavioural, normative, and control- would greatly improve clarity.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this observation. In response, we have clarified the link between the thematic codes and Ajzen’s three belief types by explicitly noting this in Section 5.4. Furthermore, to enhance the transparency and interpretability of the analysis, we have added Appendix A, which presents representative quotations from the data organized under each belief type (behavioral, normative, and control). We believe this addition strengthens the theoretical grounding of our results and improves the clarity of the findings.
Comment:
The discussion and conclusions section is well structured, and Ajzen’s framework helps interpret teacher perceptions. However, there is a tendency to restate findings rather than analyse them critically. Could generative AI tools have been used? If so, a revision is advisable to avoid that impression. The argument would benefit from further problematisation of the qualitative data. For instance, even if teachers expressed satisfaction, is there evidence of cognitive dissonance? What tensions arose between initial beliefs and the lived experience during implementation?
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. To address your concerns, we have added focused, critical interpretations throughout the Discussion section, explicitly highlighting areas of cognitive dissonance, tensions, and transformations experienced by teachers and students. Nevertheless, we note that our original manuscript already included important perspectives on technological constraints, infrastructure limitations, and systemic issues affecting implementation. We confirm that no generative AI tools were used in drafting our manuscript. The expanded critical analysis further emphasizes the nuanced dynamics captured in our qualitative data and better demonstrates the depth and rigor of our approach.
Comment:
The study's limitations are acknowledged but briefly. The lack of quantitative data could be discussed more deeply, especially regarding measurable improvements in literacy. Is this a matter of subjectivity?
Response:
Thank you for highlighting this. We have clarified in the limitations section that the qualitative, phenomenological approach was an intentional methodological choice designed to deeply capture participants’ lived experiences and perceptions, rather than measurable outcomes. We acknowledge the potential benefit of integrating quantitative data and thus recommend future studies combine qualitative insights with quantitative methods.
Comment (Formal Aspects):
The references are up to date and relevant. However, there is some imbalance between empirical and theoretical sources. It would be beneficial to incorporate more theoretical literature on arts education, critical literacy, or bilingual pedagogy, beyond Ajzen’s framework. For example, authors such as Eisner (arts as forms of knowledge), Cummins (bilingualism and empowerment), or Giroux (critical pedagogy in crisis contexts) could strengthen the theoretical foundation.
The English used is functional but contains frequent grammatical and syntactic errors that need revision before publication. For example: “This period was also combined with concurrent crises...” → better: “This period also coincided with concurrent crises.” “This action, was not only a reaction...” → the comma is unnecessary.
Additionally, redundant expressions such as emergency remote response and drama-based instruction should be reduced, and overly long sentences simplified for clarity.
Although an extra table has been suggested, the existing ones are too segmented and extensive for the main text. Consider merging or simplifying them.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for the constructive remarks. Regarding the theoretical grounding, the manuscript already integrates a broad and relevant interdisciplinary literature base, with a focus on applied arts education, bilingual literacy, and crisis pedagogy. While we appreciate the suggested authors, we opted to prioritize references directly aligned with the study’s empirical scope and methodological orientation.
The manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed for grammatical accuracy and clarity, and necessary language corrections have been made, including removal of redundancies and simplification of complex sentences.
As for the tables, their structure and placement comply with the journal’s submission guidelines. They are retained in the main text as they directly illustrate frequency and thematic weight of the qualitative findings. The additional table requested has been included in Appendix A, while the existing ones were deemed analytically necessary by the authorial team.
