PONE-D-24-35352Enhancing EFL Learning: The Impact of Positive Feedback on Positive Psychology and Neural EfficiencyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hsu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 29 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dawit Dibekulu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf  2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.  When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:  [This present research is financially supported by the National Science and Technology Council (111-2410-H-328 -004 -MY2).].  Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [This present research is financially supported by the National Science and Technology Council (111-2410-H-328 -004 -MY2).]We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:  [This present research is financially supported by the National Science and Technology Council (111-2410-H-328 -004 -MY2).].  Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. In the online submission form, you indicated that [The data will be available upon request.]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.  6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review of the article “PONE-D-24-35352”

Title

Why it shouldn’t be like this: “Enhancing EFL Learning: The Impact of Positive Feedback on Neural Efficiency and Positive Psychology”

Abstract

There are no objectives of the study or questions in the abstract. There is very detail about procedure.

So, the procedure should be short and precise.

Introduction

Literature review is more detail and too much. I prefer to be short and precise. There are no objectives or research questions in introduction. Introduction should be concluded with a brief statement of the overall aim of the work and a comment about whether that aim was achieved, but it lacks.

Materials and Methods

Study methods and materials are not clear for me. I think it should be expressed shortly and precisely. The Materials and Methods section should provide enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. Specific information and/or protocols for new methods should be included in detail. If materials, methods, and protocols are well established, authors may cite articles where those protocols are described in detail, but the submission should include sufficient information to be understood independent of these references.

Results, Discussion, Conclusions

These sections may all be separate, or may be combined to create a mixed Results/Discussion section (commonly labeled “Results and Discussion”) or a mixed Discussion/Conclusions section (commonly labeled “Discussion”). These sections may be further divided into subsections, each with a concise subheading, as appropriate. These sections have no word limit, but the language should be clear and concise. So, this part should part should fill the above requirements.

Acknowledgments

I think it is not correctly said. It should be stated correctly.

References

It should be written by “Vancouver” style.

Reviewer #2: 1. Technical Soundness and Data Support

The manuscript presents a sound piece of research with well-conducted experiments and clear data that support the conclusions. Below are the details for each experiment:

Study 1: The experiment involved 78 college students and tested whether positive feedback enhances EFL learners' PP. The study design (single-factor between-subjects) and the use of ANCOVA to adjust for baseline differences were appropriate. The results show significant effects of positive feedback on PP (F (2) = 22.952, p < .001, η²p = .383). The study's conclusion is well-supported by the data (e.g., Figure 5 and Table 2), showing a clear enhancement of FAA, an indicator of PP, in the experimental group.

Study 2: This study examined neural efficiency using a within-subjects 3×2 factorial design. The authors appropriately used a two-way ANOVA to examine the interaction between PP and positive feedback, finding significant effects on neural efficiency (F (2) = 6.599, p = .002, η²p = .121). This supports the hypothesis that positive feedback enhances neural efficiency, which is detailed with proper statistical reporting (Table 3, Figure 6).

Study 3: This final study explores the relationship between neural efficiency and learning outcomes. Pearson correlation analysis revealed a strong and significant relationship (r = .563, p < .001), supporting the hypothesis that neural efficiency is positively associated with better learning outcomes (Table 4, Figure 7).

Evidence: The statistical evidence provided in Tables 2, 3, and 4, along with corresponding figures, strongly supports the conclusions drawn from the experiments.

Recommendation: The experiments are sound, and the data support the conclusions. However, it may be beneficial to include a deeper discussion of potential confounding variables in the experiment design.

2. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis is rigorous and appropriate, with detailed reporting of effect sizes and significance values. The authors use ANCOVA, two-way ANOVA, and Pearson correlation, all of which are correctly applied to their respective datasets.

Study 1 (ANCOVA): The authors properly adjusted for baseline FAA differences, and the results are significant (F (2) = 22.952, p < .001). The use of η²p (partial eta squared) for effect size gives further insight into the strength of the effect (η²p = .383), which is considered a large effect size.

Study 2 (Two-Way ANOVA): The authors used a two-way ANOVA to examine the interaction between feedback and PP on neural efficiency. The interaction term was significant, with η²p = .121, indicating that the feedback and PP interaction had a notable impact on neural efficiency. The assumptions for ANOVA appear to be met, but it would be helpful to include a check for normality or homogeneity of variances.

Study 3 (Pearson Correlation): The correlation between neural efficiency and learning outcomes (r = .563, p < .001) is both statistically significant and strong, indicating a robust relationship.

Evidence: Tables 2, 3, and 4 provide sufficient statistical details, with p-values and effect sizes correctly reported.

Recommendation: Consider adding a check for assumptions (e.g., normality for ANOVA) and ensure this is mentioned in the methods or discussion section for completeness.

3. Data Availability

The data availability statement in the manuscript states that data are available upon request from the corresponding author. However, PLOS ONE prefers that the data be fully available without restrictions. The authors should ideally provide the data through a public repository or include it as part of the supporting information.

Evidence: The Data Availability Statement on page 21 indicates that the data can be requested but is not directly available through a repository or as supplementary material.

Recommendation: To fully comply with PLOS ONE’s data policy, I recommend that the authors upload their data to a public repository or include it in the supporting information.

4. Presentation and Language

The manuscript is generally well-written, but there are areas where clarity can be improved. For example:

Introduction: While the background is thorough, some sections could benefit from more concise phrasing. For example, in the paragraph explaining positive psychology (page 3), the phrase "It has been asserted that incorporating PP provides a transformative perspective on language education" could be tightened to improve flow.

Grammatical Issues: There are minor grammatical issues throughout, such as in Study 2's description: "Participants of the low PP group sat in front of the computer and watch the scene of April's Breakdown of the movie Revolutionary Road," where "watch" should be "watched."

Clarity in Statistical Reporting: In Table 2 (Study 1), the authors mention a "η²p" effect size without explaining this term in the text. Although this is a commonly used metric, it would be helpful to briefly clarify it for readers who may not be familiar with this statistic.

Evidence: Examples of unclear or awkward phrasing can be found in Study 2 (page 15) and the introduction (page 3).

Recommendation: A light proofreading for grammatical issues and clarity is recommended. Some phrasing can be tightened, and statistical terms should be briefly explained where necessary.

Summary of Recommendations

Technical Soundness: The study is technically sound, but a discussion of potential confounding variables would strengthen the conclusions.

Statistical Rigor: The statistical analysis is appropriate, but it is advisable to mention checks for assumptions (e.g., normality for ANOVA).

Data Availability: The authors should make their data publicly available, either through a repository or as supplementary material, to fully comply with PLOS ONE's data-sharing policy.

Language and Presentation: The manuscript is clear overall, but minor grammatical issues should be addressed, and the phrasing could be made more concise in some sections.

Reviewer #3: The present study is interesting, the language is good, and the content and analysis match the title. Yet some points are recommended to amend some issues mainly related to the section of Methodology. The review report is attached.

Reviewer #4: 1. Title and Abstract

• Title: The title reflects the article’s content, but it might benefit from being more specific about the research’s unique contribution (e.g., neural efficiency in EFL learning and positive psychology).

• Abstract: The abstract effectively summarizes the research; however, it could benefit from explicitly mentioning the sample size in each experiment and clarifying the significance of findings beyond the educational setting.

2. Introduction

• Strengths: The introduction provides a comprehensive background on Positive Psychology (PP), EFL learning, and the Neural Efficiency Hypothesis. The justification for combining neuroscientific and behavioral methods is clear.

• Weaknesses: The introduction could benefit from a clearer explanation of how this study differs from previous studies on PP and neural efficiency in language learning. It would be useful to elaborate on the practical implications of the findings for educators in different contexts beyond Taiwan.

3. Literature Review

• Strengths: The literature review is well-rounded, integrating recent research and theoretical frameworks on positive feedback, PP, and neural efficiency.

• Weaknesses: Some of the references are quite general, and a few more specific studies directly linking PP with neural efficiency in EFL contexts would strengthen the argument. Additionally, a clearer distinction between previous findings and the current study’s unique contribution is needed.

4. Methodology

• Strengths: The three experiments are clearly described, with a solid justification for the use of EEG and behavioral measures. The experimental design is robust, especially the random assignment of participants and the use of control and experimental groups.

• Weaknesses: The methodology could provide more details on how the tasks were adapted to the proficiency levels of the participants, especially given the inclusion of TOEIC scores as a criterion. It would also help to include more information on potential confounding factors and how they were controlled.

5. Results

• Strengths: The statistical analysis is thorough and appropriate for the research questions. The use of ANCOVA and two-way ANOVA tests is justified, and the results are clearly presented with tables and figures.

• Weaknesses: While the findings are significant, the discussion could be expanded to explain the practical significance of the effect sizes (e.g., how much PP improvement translates into real-world language learning outcomes). The interpretation of EEG results, particularly the alpha band, should be linked more explicitly to practical applications in language learning.

6. Discussion

• Strengths: The discussion links the results back to the research questions and hypotheses and provides a clear narrative on how positive feedback enhances PP and neural efficiency.

• Weaknesses: The limitations section mentions the need for ecological validity but does not suggest concrete future directions. It would be helpful to propose specific field-based studies or cross-cultural validations. Moreover, the discussion could benefit from a deeper exploration of how different types of positive feedback (e.g., written vs. verbal) might affect learning outcomes differently.

7. Conclusion and Implications

• Strengths: The conclusion appropriately summarizes the main findings and their implications for EFL teaching and learning.

• Weaknesses: The practical implications for educators could be expanded. For instance, how can these findings be integrated into teacher training programs? Additionally, the broader implications for language learning technology and feedback mechanisms in online learning contexts could be more thoroughly explored.

8. References

• The references are up-to-date and relevant, but there might be room to include more recent studies that specifically address the neural mechanisms underlying PP in language learning.

9. Figures and Tables

• The figures are clear and informative, but some tables (e.g., Table 1 on the overview of studies) might benefit from additional footnotes explaining key terms for readers unfamiliar with the neuroscience aspect.

10. Ethical Considerations

• The ethical statement is clear, and the study follows proper guidelines. However, it could include more information on how the researchers ensured the emotional well-being of participants who were in the control group (receiving criticism or no feedback).

General Comments

• Overall, this article presents an innovative and well-executed study. It makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of how positive feedback and PP enhance neural efficiency in EFL learners. However, there are areas where more practical implications and cross-contextual discussions could enhance the article’s relevance to a broader audience of educators and researchers.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mohanad Husni Al Jbour

Reviewer #3: Yes: Nawal Fadhil Abbas

Reviewer #4: Yes: Abdullah Al Fraidan

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report for.docx

Neural efficiency in EFL learning and positive psychology

PONE-D-24-35352R1

Dear Dr. Liwei Hsu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dawit Dibekulu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: