PONE-D-24-44890What sustain Chinese adult second language (L2) learners' engagement in online classes? A sequential mix-methods study on the roles of L2 motivation and enjoymentPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

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 Jan 05 2025 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,

Hua Pang

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 your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: 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: No

Reviewer #2: 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: The paper's topic has certain theoretical and practical significance. The overall design is well-executed, aligning with the paradigm and approach of mixed research design. The structure of the paper is complete, and the quantitative and qualitative data effectively address the research questions. However, there are several issues that the authors should consider:

[1] The grasp of prior literature for this research needs to be strengthened. Please consider the following references

� Liu, H., Zhong, Y., Chen, H., & Wang, Y. (2023). The mediating roles of resilience and motivation in the relationship between students’ English learning burnout on engagement: A conservation-of-resources perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0089.

� Wang, X. & Liu, H. (2024). Exploring the moderation roles of emotions, attitudes, environment, and teachers on the impact of motivation on learning behaviors in students’ English learning. Psychological Reports, online publication, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941241231714

� Wang, Y. & Liu. H. (2022). The mediating roles of boredom and buoyancy in the relationship between autonomous motivation and engagement among Chinese senior high school EFL learners. Frontiers in Psychology. 13:992279, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.992279

� Liu, H. & Fan, J. (2024), AI-mediated communication in EFL classrooms: the role of technical and pedagogical stimuli and the mediating effects of AI literacy and enjoyment. European Journal of Education. e12813. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12813

� Liu, H., Zhu, Z., & Chen, B. (2024). Unraveling the mediating role of buoyancy in the relationship between anxiety and EFL students’ learning engagement. Perceptual and Motor Skills. https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241291639

� Liu, H., Li. J., & Fang. F. (2022). Examining the complexity between boredom and engagement in English Learning: Evidence from Chinese high school students. Sustainability, 14, 16920: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416920.

� Liu, H. & Song, X. (2021). Exploring “Flow” in young Chinese EFL learners’ online English learning activities. SYSTEM, 96, 102425: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102425.

Please note you are not obliged to include any of the citations above. Not including the suggested

references has no negative impact on the final editorial decision. You are requested to determine

if the citations add value to the current submission and are free to exclude any/all citations as

appropriate.

[2] Figures should use standardized models instead of non-standardized ones. Additionally, some correlation coefficients are not clear from the figures, such as the relationship between IL2S and several other variables.

[3] The authors are requested to check whether the factor loading from engagement to cognition being 1.01 is abnormal, which leads back to the question above about whether non-standardized figures were used.

[4] The text throughout the paper requires polishing and proper copyediting.

Reviewer #2: This study addresses an important and under-researched area - the motivational and emotional factors influencing adult L2 learners' engagement in online language classes. The authors employ a robust theoretical framework, the Control-Value Theory, to examine the interplay between L2 self-guides (ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self), enjoyment, and engagement among Chinese adult L2 learners. The sequential mixed-methods design allows for both breadth and depth in the exploration of these relationships. While the study has several strengths, there are also areas that require further clarification and development before the manuscript is ready for publication.

One of the key strengths of this study is its focus on adult L2 learners, a demographic that has received limited attention in the existing literature compared to school-aged learners. Given the distinct challenges and motivations of adult learners, such as balancing language learning with professional and personal obligations, this study fills an important gap in our understanding. The authors make a compelling case for why this population warrants special consideration in L2 motivation research.

The theoretical grounding of the study in the Control-Value Theory is another strength. The authors provide a clear rationale for how the CVT framework can elucidate the relationships between L2 self-guides, enjoyment, and engagement. The visual representation of the theoretical links (Figure 1) effectively illustrates the proposed pathways. Situating the study within this established theory enhances the conceptual clarity and interpretability of the findings.

Methodologically, the use of a sequential mixed-methods design is well-justified. The quantitative phase, with its large sample size (n=367), allows for the statistical testing of the hypothesized relationships using structural equation modeling. The subsequent qualitative phase, involving semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants, provides a deeper understanding of the statistical patterns observed. This integration of quantitative and qualitative data strengthens the validity and richness of the conclusions drawn.

However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be improved. First, while the authors mention that the scales used to measure L2 self-guides, enjoyment, and engagement were adapted from previous studies, more details are needed about this adaptation process. How exactly were the items modified to fit the context of adult online learners? Were any new items developed? Providing this information would enhance the replicability of the study.

Second, the description of the qualitative data analysis procedures is somewhat sparse. The authors state that they followed the six-phase thematic analysis approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), but do not provide much detail on how each phase was implemented. For example, how were initial codes generated? How were themes reviewed and refined? A more transparent and thorough account of the qualitative analysis process would strengthen the trustworthiness of the findings.

Third, the discussion of the quantitative results could be more fully developed. While the authors do an excellent job of presenting the SEM findings and relating them back to the hypotheses, there is limited exploration of why certain hypotheses were not supported. For instance, why might the ideal L2 self not significantly predict enjoyment and engagement in this context, contrary to previous studies? The authors offer some potential explanations based on the qualitative data, but a deeper engagement with the extant literature and theory would enrich the interpretation.

Finally, the practical implications of the study could be more clearly articulated. Given the findings about the importance of the ought-to L2 self for adult learners' enjoyment and engagement, what specific strategies might online language programs employ to leverage this? How can course designers and instructors create environments that cater to the unique motivations of adult learners? Providing more concrete recommendations grounded in the study's insights would enhance the applied value of the research.

In terms of minor issues, there are a few instances of awkward phrasing or grammatical errors (e.g., "Our study collected quantitative data during summer from three universities in China that offer multilingual online training for adult L2 learners" could be rephrased for clarity). A thorough round of proofreading and editing would help polish the writing.

Overall, this study makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the motivational dynamics underlying adult L2 learners' engagement in online classes. The focus on an under-researched population, the solid theoretical foundation, and the mixed-methods approach are notable strengths. However, the manuscript would benefit from more methodological detail, a deeper discussion of the findings in light of prior research, and clearer practical implications. With some revisions to address these points, the paper has the potential to make a significant impact in the field of L2 motivation.

**********

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: No

**********

[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.

What sustain Chinese adult second language (L2) learners' engagement in online classes? A sequential mix-methods study on the roles of L2 motivation and enjoyment

PONE-D-24-44890R1

Dear Dr. Liu,

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,

Hua Pang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. 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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. 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 Response)

**********

5. 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: (No Response)

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thanks for the revisions. The revised file looks fine to me. The only minor comment is that the author should carefully proofread the paper for better readability.

**********

7. 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: No

**********