-->PONE-D-24-53961-->-->Investigating University English as a Foreign Language Instructor's Implementations in Teaching Integral Listening with Speaking-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shago,

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 Apr 13 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,

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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We also appreciate Hawassa University and Wolaita Sodo University for financial support for data collection. “

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:

“The author(s) received no specific funding for this work”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

6. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page.

7. Please include a copy of Table 9 which you refer to in your text on page 22.

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information .

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->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: No

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: Dear Authors,

Thank you for your submission. Below are my detailed comments regarding the manuscript:

1. Technical Soundness & Data Support for Conclusions (Partly)

The manuscript presents a valuable study on integrating listening and speaking skills in Ethiopian EFL classrooms. The mixed-methods approach (surveys, interviews, classroom observations) provides insightful findings, but several limitations weaken the strength of the conclusions:

Mismatch Between Instructor Perceptions and Student Feedback:

Instructors report high integration of listening and speaking skills, but students' survey responses and classroom observations contradict this.

This suggests possible overestimation or bias in self-reported data.

Recommendation: The study should explicitly acknowledge this discrepancy and provide further validation, such as external assessments.

Lack of Longitudinal Data or Experimental Control:

The study does not track improvements in students’ listening/speaking skills over time.

No control group is used to compare different instructional strategies.

Recommendation: Future research should consider pre/post-assessments or comparative studies to strengthen causal claims.

Limited Generalizability:

The study focuses on only two Ethiopian universities, making broader applicability uncertain.

Recommendation: The authors should discuss this limitation and suggest cross-institutional studies for future work.

2. Statistical Analysis (Yes)

The statistical analysis is rigorous and appropriate, employing:

Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) for survey responses.

Multiple regression analysis to examine the relationship between instructional practices and skill integration.

Normality checks and collinearity diagnostics (VIF & Tolerance).

However, areas for improvement include:

No comparative tests (e.g., t-tests, ANOVA) to examine group differences.

No statistical validation of actual student improvement (e.g., pre/post-tests).

Recommendation: Including comparative analysis and pre/post performance data would enhance empirical validation.

3. Data Availability (No)

The full dataset (survey responses, coded qualitative data, regression outputs) is not publicly available.

Interview transcripts and NVIVO-coded themes are not included.

Recommendation:

The authors should deposit anonymized raw data in a public repository (e.g., Figshare, Zenodo, Dryad).

If privacy concerns exist, structured data summaries should be provided as supplementary materials.

4. Language and Clarity (No)

The manuscript contains multiple grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and redundant sections.

Overly complex sentence structures make comprehension difficult.

Terminology is inconsistent (e.g., "integral teaching" vs. "integrated teaching").

Recommendation:

The manuscript should undergo thorough professional copyediting to improve clarity and readability.

Redundant content should be streamlined for better flow.

Technical terms should be consistently defined and explained.

5. Additional Concerns and Recommendations

Ethical Considerations: The study states that ethical approval was obtained, but more clarity on informed consent procedures (especially for student participants) would be beneficial.

Study Contribution: The research provides valuable insights into EFL teaching challenges in Ethiopian universities, making it relevant to curriculum developers, instructors, and policymakers.

Recommendation for Strengthening Findings:

Explicitly acknowledge biases in self-reported data.

Use additional data sources for validation (e.g., rubric-based speaking assessments).

Include more structured comparisons with prior research.

Final Recommendation: Major Revision

The study is well-conceptualized and methodologically sound, but significant revisions are required before acceptance. Key areas to address:

Data availability compliance with PLOS ONE policy.

Improvements in empirical validation (pre/post assessment, additional statistical tests).

Grammar, clarity, and structural issues requiring professional copyediting.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript Title:

Investigating University English as a Foreign Language Instructor’s Implementations in Teaching Integral Listening with Speaking

1. Overall Assessment

This manuscript examines how university EFL instructors implement integral teaching of listening and speaking, a crucial area in applied linguistics. However, the paper contains significant methodological flaws, imprecise language, inadequate engagement with recent literature, and problematic statistical analyses. There are also major inconsistencies between the research objectives, findings, and conclusions. Without substantial revisions, the manuscript does not meet the standard for publication.

2. Major Language and Structural Issues (By Section & Page Number)

Abstract (Page 1)

•The abstract is wordy and lacks precision. The phrase “scarce studies in the area” should be replaced with “limited prior research.”

•The sentence “Students’ data confirmed these findings” lacks clarity. Which specific data points confirm the findings? Be explicit.

•Typos:

•“forwarded recommendations” → should be “provided recommendations.”

•“target variables that improve integral instruction” → should be “key factors influencing integrated instruction.”

Introduction (Pages 2-4)

•The introduction lacks a clear problem statement. It vaguely suggests that integrated teaching is underutilized without presenting quantifiable evidence or literature-based justification.

•Inconsistent terminology: The manuscript inconsistently switches between “integral teaching” and “integrated teaching.” Choose one term and maintain consistency.

•Overuse of generic phrases:

•“Speaking and listening are significant skills for learning other English language skills” → This is redundant; revise to “Speaking and listening are foundational for English language acquisition.”

•Suggested References to Incorporate:

•Al Fraidan (2025). Evaluating Lexical Competency in Saudi Arabia’s Hybridized EFL Ecosystem: A Taxonomic Exploration of Vocabulary Assessment Modalities and the Imperative for AI-Enhanced Adaptive Testing.

•Why? This study provides insights into language skill integration in diverse learning environments, directly relevant to the manuscript’s topic.

Methodology (Pages 5-7)

•Sampling Issues:

•The study claims to have used “systematic sampling” for student participants but does not explain the criteria for inclusion/exclusion.

•The total sample size of 252 participants is mentioned, but how were these numbers determined? Was a power analysis conducted?

•Data Collection Methods:

•The manuscript states that “observations were structured”, but there is no mention of an observation rubric or inter-rater reliability measures.

•NVIVO was used for qualitative analysis, but the coding framework is not provided. What themes were pre-identified? Were codes data-driven or theory-driven?

•Statistical Problems:

•Regression models lack justification for predictor selection.

•VIF values are reported but not interpreted correctly. The manuscript does not discuss potential collinearity issues in explanatory variables.

•Suggested References to Incorporate:

•Al Fraidan & Alsubaie (2025). Exam Anxiety and Vocabulary Challenges: Insights from Postgraduate Female Students in Open and Closed Book Exams.

•Why? The study provides empirical insights into student learning challenges, essential for contextualizing the findings.

Findings and Discussion (Pages 10-14)

•Mismatch Between Quantitative and Qualitative Findings:

•Table 3 reports high instructor self-ratings (mean values around 3.7-4.0), yet qualitative findings suggest poor implementation.

•There is no attempt to reconcile this contradiction—why do students and teachers perceive instructional practices so differently?

•Statistical Errors:

•The adjusted R² value of 0.288 in the regression model suggests that only 28.8% of the variance is explained. This is weak. What other variables might contribute to implementation differences?

•No effect sizes are reported. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d, eta squared) are critical in educational research.

•Discussion Fails to Engage with Prior Studies:

•There is no meaningful comparison with existing research. The discussion simply repeats the results without analyzing how they align with or challenge previous work.

•Suggested References to Incorporate:

•Al Fraidan (2024). The impact of students’ misperceptions on test performance: A 3P model and self-determination theory approach.

•Why? This study discusses perception discrepancies in learning contexts, relevant for explaining the conflicting quantitative and qualitative results in the manuscript.

Limitations and Recommendations (Pages 15-16)

•Limitations Section is Underdeveloped:

•The manuscript vaguely states “instructors were theoretically grounded, but not reflected in practical application.” This needs quantifiable evidence.

•The study’s geographical limitation to two Ethiopian universities is not adequately acknowledged as a constraint to generalizability.

•Recommendations are Not Practical:

•The study suggests curriculum reform but fails to outline specific pedagogical changes. How should universities modify teaching strategies?

•Suggested References to Incorporate:

•Al Fraidan & Al-Harazi (2023). Using Social Media Platforms to Prepare for Examinations Post-COVID-19: The Case of Saudi University EFL Learners.

•Why? This research presents alternative pedagogical tools, which could strengthen the manuscript’s recommendations.

3. Specific Recommendations for Major Revisions

1.Improve clarity and precision in writing. Revise abstract and introduction to eliminate redundancy.

2.Clearly define key terms. Provide a consistent definition of “integral teaching” and maintain terminology throughout.

3.Enhance methodological transparency.

•Justify sample size selection and recruitment criteria.

•Explain NVIVO coding procedures for qualitative analysis.

•Provide inter-rater reliability data for observational measures.

4.Strengthen statistical analysis.

•Report effect sizes and confidence intervals.

•Discuss collinearity concerns in regression models.

•Address the weak explanatory power (R² = 0.288) in regression analysis.

5.Improve discussion section.

•Compare findings with existing research rather than merely repeating results.

•Explain discrepancies between instructor self-reports and student evaluations.

6.Provide concrete recommendations. Suggest practical, actionable steps for improving teaching practices.

7.Incorporate recent literature. Include the suggested references above

4. Final Decision: Major Revisions Required

The manuscript fails to meet the standard for publication in its current form due to methodological flaws, statistical inconsistencies, and poor engagement with existing literature. Substantial revisions are necessary before reconsideration.

**********

-->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: Yes:  Mohanad Aljbour

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.

-->PONE-D-24-53961R1-->-->Investigating University English as a Foreign Language Instructor's Implementations in Teaching Integral Listening with Speaking-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shago,

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 Jul 02 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,

Dawit Dibekulu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

Additional Editor Comments :

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for your submission. Please note that one reviewer comment has been added requesting evisions to improve clarity and strengthen the discussion. Kindly address this in your revised manuscript.

Best regards,

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

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: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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: Yes

**********

-->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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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: There is a significant mismatch between instructors’ self-reports and students’ feedback, suggesting possible overestimation in instructor perceptions. While this discrepancy is acknowledged in the discussion, it would benefit from deeper triangulation with additional measures, such as rubric-based performance evaluations or third-party assessments.

The conclusions are generally consistent with the data, but should be framed more cautiously due to the descriptive and cross-sectional nature of the research design.

The regression model has limited explanatory power (Adjusted R² = 0.288), and this should be more critically discussed in terms of implications.

No inferential group comparisons (e.g., t-tests or ANOVA) were performed to examine differences across groups, which would have strengthened the analysis.

Effect sizes (Cohen’s d, eta squared) were not reported, limiting interpretation of practical significance.

The selection of regression predictors was not well justified initially; this was later addressed, but could still benefit from clearer theoretical alignment.

Despite the authors’ statement that "all relevant data are within the manuscript and supporting information files," the underlying data are not fully available:

No anonymized raw data from surveys (Likert responses) are included.

No SPSS or regression output files are provided.

The NVIVO-coded qualitative data or coding frameworks are not attached.

The data are not deposited in any public repository, which is preferred under PLOS ONE’s data policy.

The authors must upload all underlying data (survey responses, regression model variables, and qualitative coding schema) to a recognized open-access repository (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) or provide them as supplementary files.

The revised version has improved in clarity and readability. However, a few sections—particularly in the methodology and discussion—would benefit from tighter organization and more concise phrasing. Please ensure final proofreading for grammatical consistency.

Recommendation

The manuscript presents meaningful findings and has potential for publication. However, it requires moderate revision to address the following:

Provide public access to underlying data in line with PLOS ONE’s policy.

Include or discuss effect sizes and comparative analyses to strengthen statistical interpretation.

Frame conclusions with appropriate caution, given the cross-sectional, descriptive nature of the study.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->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: Yes:  Mohanad Aljbour

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.-->

Investigating University English as a Foreign Language Instructor's Implementations in Teaching Integral Listening with Speaking

PONE-D-24-53961R2

Dear Dr. Addisu

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):

revise the paper as outline of plos one

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: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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: Yes

**********

-->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: Yes

**********

-->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: I would like to commend the authors for their thoughtful and thorough revision of the manuscript titled "Investigating University English as a Foreign Language Instructor's Implementations in Teaching Integral Listening with Speaking". The revised version reflects clear attention to the feedback provided in the previous review and demonstrates a strong commitment to scientific rigor, clarity, and transparency.

1. Technical Soundness and Methodological Rigor

The study is technically sound and well-structured. The concurrent mixed-methods design is highly appropriate for exploring the complex dynamics of EFL instructional practices. The authors have strengthened the methodological section by more clearly outlining the sampling procedures, ethical approvals, research instruments, and the rationale for selecting the variables included in the quantitative analysis. The ethical integrity of the study is well maintained, with clear documentation of consent and approval procedures.

The sample size is adequate, and the integration of quantitative and qualitative data provides a rich and triangulated perspective on the research questions. The revised version demonstrates increased clarity in the alignment between the data collected and the conclusions drawn.

2. Data Analysis and Interpretation

The statistical analyses are competently performed using SPSS, with proper attention to assumptions such as normality and multicollinearity. The regression analysis is logically applied to examine predictive relationships, and the authors now appropriately interpret the results with caution, noting the moderate adjusted R². While effect sizes are not reported, the overall structure and transparency of the analysis are sound and relevant to the research aims.

The qualitative findings—analyzed via NVivo—are coherently presented and well integrated with the quantitative data. The themes are insightful and directly support the overarching conclusions of the study.

3. Clarity of Conclusions and Contribution

The conclusions are well-founded and clearly supported by the data. The revised manuscript frames its findings in a descriptive and exploratory manner, avoiding overgeneralization and recognizing the limitations of the cross-sectional design. This reflective and responsible approach enhances the manuscript's credibility.

The study contributes meaningfully to the field of language education, particularly in the context of higher education in developing countries. It highlights the critical gap between perceived and actual classroom practices, offering practical implications for teacher training and curriculum development.

4. Data Availability and Transparency

The authors have improved transparency regarding data availability, and I appreciate the effort made to align with journal policy. I encourage the authors, if possible, to make anonymized raw data and coding frameworks publicly available through a recognized data repository in future projects to further enhance replicability.

Final Comments

Overall, this is a strong and valuable manuscript that has been significantly improved through revision. It is well-written, methodologically sound, and offers important insights into pedagogical practices related to integrated listening and speaking skills. I believe it will be of interest to a wide range of scholars and practitioners in the field of applied linguistics, TEFL, and educational development.

Thank you for your contribution.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->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: Yes:  Dr. Mohanad Aljbour

Reviewer #2: No

**********