An Analysis of Situations and Perspectives of Secondary Education Korean Dance Teachers’ Task Presentation Sustainable Teaching Effectiveness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your submission. The topic is interesting but there are some which need to address.
The first the definition of sustainable teaching effectiveness has to be improved.
Context of study on secondary education of Korean dance teachers has to be improved.
Please confirm whether this study is used interview data or written survey.
Limit of study and future direction is missing. Both here should be provided.
Author Response
Thank you for your submission. The topic is interesting but there are some which need to address.
The first the definition of sustainable teaching effectiveness has to be improved.
Sustainable teaching effectiveness means having the knowledge, skills, attitudes necessary for successful teaching performance and problem solving. Many professors and teachers have lacked sufficient pedagogical training needed to teach their courses effectively (Husband, 2013).
The term sustainable teaching effectiveness should be defined as the collection of characteristics, competencies, and behaviors of teachers at all educational levels that have enabled students to think critically, work collaboratively, and become effective citizens. It has been demonstrated through knowledge, attitudes, overall performance, and more interaction between students, and teachers (Regmi, 2013) and has provided students with opportunities to explore ideas, acquire new knowledge, synthesize information, and solve problems.
Context of study on secondary education of Korean dance teachers has to be improved.
Since Korea has opened dance teacher education programs in 1960, a large number of dance major teachers were produced. However, sustainable teaching effectiveness of dance teacher is questionable. Despite ineffectiveness of dance teacher’s teaching, many questions on the quality and fidelity of dance teacher’s teaching skills are remaining unanswered due to the lack of study on this issue. Studying the dance teacher’s one of teaching skills to open for the public is not easy. Thus, there is a need to study the realities and perspectives of dance teachers’ task presentation effectiveness in Korea.
Please confirm whether this study is used interview data or written survey.
It was introduced in Methods section.
In this study, in-depth interviews were conducted in advance, and the interview questionnaire was developed through the following steps: First, to grasp the knowledge and degree of application of task presentation of secondary dance teachers, the elements of task presentation were defined as “attention”, “verbal explanation”, “demonstration”, “learning cues”, and “assessment knowledge”. Through interviews, we asked about the effective methods used by individual teachers for task presentation in actual classroom situations. If there was insufficient experience and knowledge on task presentation, we asked for expertise regarding effective task presentation. Lastly, subjects were asked whether they would undertake pedagogical training for task presentation in the future, and the necessity of methods for teaching task presentation. The pre-in-depth interview questionnaire was reviewed through expert meetings for its suitability and applicability, and then revised and supplemented to create the final questionnaire.
Limit of study and future direction is missing. Both here should be provided.
As you suggested added the followings:
This study has the following limitations. First, the subjects of this study were five middle school dance teachers in the part of region in Korea, two low-career teachers, two middle-career teachers, and one high-career teacher. Since teachers were classified only as dance teaching careers, there is a limit to generalization, so diversity on dance majors, other schools or regional differences, should be considered. Second, the tasks of this study were limited to two categories: jazz dance and fork dance. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the fact that the effect of presenting different tasks is unknown. Third, since the class environment was all conducted in the dance hall, it may be different from the effects of other learning environments such as auditorium and gymnasium.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for this interesting manuscript!
While the manuscript is generally well written, I still have some revision suggestion for you, focusing on the following:
- Several assumptions need to be supported by citations/referencing
- Several aspects (definitions, tables) are not clear and need revision for clarification
- The results and discussion section should be split into two sections
- Limitation to the study are lacking and should be discussed as well
- Most parts of the conclusions (suggestions) are not based on findings from the study. Thus, they should be omitted
In the following, you will find more detailed suggestions to address the issues mentioned here:
Abstract
The abstract should be revised taking under consideration the following aspects (see also instructions for authors):
- Max. 200 words
- Structure: Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion; approx. equal number of words per category (not emphasize too much on Results and Conclusion
- Correct use of English language
1. Introduction
l.57-60: Please support these assumptions with references.
l.74-77: Please support these assumptions with references.
2. Materials and Methods
Sample and Data Collection
l. 112-113: Please use "transcribed", instead of "transferred". Which method did you use for transcription?
l. 113-114: What do you understand by "normal classroom teaching"? In what setting did the lessons take place: sport hall; dancing room, classroom?
l. 129-130: How was "insufficient experience and knowledge on task presentation" assessed? What are the indicators and criteria for this?
3.2. Qualitative Teaching Behavior Measurement Tool
l. 137-139: This sentence should be reformulated in a different way, it is hard to understand.
l. 140: "can be used to analyze"
l. 151-154: This sentence should be reformulated in a different way, it is hard to understand.
l. 154-156: What is your rationale for this decision? I think this decision can be questioned.
4. Data Analysis
L. 166: "at the fourth time" please reformulate for clarification
5. Results and Discussion
Following the instructions for authors, this section should be divided into two separate ones: "Results" and "Discussion"
5.1. Student Attention
l. 184-185: "The results of this study show that the reality of a teacher education program 184 that is not specific and systematic": I don't understand this part of the sentence
l. 188-198: The authors cite 3 examples from 3 teachers from the interviews. But in the text, it is not referred to these examples at all. If so, it is not necessary to cite the teachers. Thus, I suggest to either delete these statements or to refer directly to them in the text.
5.2. Demonstration
l. 234, table 2: "Demonstration Angle" - yes / no: please clarify what you mean by this, eventually in a note to the table.
L. 235-236: "Bachman ladder climbing": please explain, this concept is unknown to me.
l. 240-242: This sentence should be reformulated in a different way, it is hard to understand.
l. 265: It should be table 2, not 3.
5.3. Learning Cues
How do you define "Learning cues"?
l. 292-293: How do you define what an appropriate number of learning cues is? What is the rationale for this?
l. 296-298: Where do you have the number of 52% from?
Table 3: I suggest a different order, from low to high (or vice-versa): None - 1-2 - 3-4
l. 301: learning cues
5.4. Comprehensive QMTPS Analysis
l. 338: "By analyzing the 40th class of five teachers in this study": this means that only one class is analyzed. Do you mean "40 classes of five teachers..."?
l. 339: Table 6: should be table 4
l. 339-341: This sentence should be reformulated in a different way, it is hard to understand.
l. 344, table 4: Please explain what you understand with "Positive, partial, negative", e.g. in a note to the table.
l. 345-347: What lets you assume this? What is the rationale for this assumption?
l. 382-384: Please provide a reference for this.
General comment:
The discussion section completely lacks a sub-section about limitations to this study. I strongly suggest to add thoughts about possible limitations.
6.Conclusions and Suggestions
l. 440: What are "clichéd questions"?
l. 431-465: Suggestions 1-4 are very general and are mostly not derived from the results and the findings of this study. The could be made based on findings from a literature review, but not from this study. Only suggestion 5 is based on findings from this study, so the conclusion should focus on these aspects.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your suggestions. We are ready to address any further comments any and your suggestion for increasing the quality of the paper.
Thank you very much,
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revised version submission. The current form is much more improved and ready to publish.
Author Response
Review report 1
Thank you for your submission. The topic is interesting but there are some which need to address.
The first the definition of sustainable teaching effectiveness has to be improved.
Sustainable teaching effectiveness means having the knowledge, skills, attitudes necessary for successful teaching performance and problem solving. Many professors and teachers have lacked sufficient pedagogical training needed to teach their courses effectively (Husband, 2013).
The term sustainable teaching effectiveness should be defined as the collection of characteristics, competencies, and behaviors of teachers at all educational levels that have enabled students to think critically, work collaboratively, and become effective citizens. It has been demonstrated through knowledge, attitudes, overall performance, and more interaction between students, and teachers (Regmi, 2013) and has provided students with opportunities to explore ideas, acquire new knowledge, synthesize information, and solve problems.
Context of study on secondary education of Korean dance teachers has to be improved.
Since Korea has opened dance teacher education programs in 1960, a large number of dance major teachers were produced. However, sustainable teaching effectiveness of dance teacher is questionable. Despite ineffectiveness of dance teacher’s teaching, many questions on the quality and fidelity of dance teacher’s teaching skills are remaining unanswered due to the lack of study on this issue. Studying the dance teacher’s one of teaching skills to open for the public is not easy. Thus, there is a need to study the realities and perspectives of dance teachers’ task presentation effectiveness in Korea.
Please confirm whether this study is used interview data or written survey.
It was introduced in Methods section.
In this study, in-depth interviews were conducted in advance, and the interview questionnaire was developed through the following steps: First, to grasp the knowledge and degree of application of task presentation of secondary dance teachers, the elements of task presentation were defined as “attention”, “verbal explanation”, “demonstration”, “learning cues”, and “assessment knowledge”. Through interviews, we asked about the effective methods used by individual teachers for task presentation in actual classroom situations. If there was insufficient experience and knowledge on task presentation, we asked for expertise regarding effective task presentation. Lastly, subjects were asked whether they would undertake pedagogical training for task presentation in the future, and the necessity of methods for teaching task presentation. The pre-in-depth interview questionnaire was reviewed through expert meetings for its suitability and applicability, and then revised and supplemented to create the final questionnaire.
Limit of study and future direction is missing. Both here should be provided.
As you suggested added the followings:
This study has the following limitations. First, the subjects of this study were five middle school dance teachers in the part of region in Korea, two low-career teachers, two middle-career teachers, and one high-career teacher. Since teachers were classified only as dance teaching careers, there is a limit to generalization, so diversity on dance majors, other schools or regional differences, should be considered. Second, the tasks of this study were limited to two categories: jazz dance and fork dance. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the fact that the effect of presenting different tasks is unknown. Third, since the class environment was all conducted in the dance hall, it may be different from the effects of other learning environments such as auditorium and gymnasium.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, thanks a lot for the revisions, which address most of the issues raised in the first review!
However, there are still issues that need to be addressed prior to acceptance for publication:
General comment:
Section 5 Results and Discussion has been split into sections 5 Results discussion and 6 Discussion, which is generally fine. But the new section 5 should be named 5 Results. Further on and most importantly, section 6 has to be be revised, as there are several parts and tables that can be found already in section 5!
Specific comments:
l. 162: "The frequency of each item of the QMTPS at the four time for each teacher obtained using the QMTPS analysis frame was calculated and recorded 163 as a percentage, and finally, the total QMTPS score for each teacher was calculated.": It still remains unclear to me what 'at the four time' means here. Please clarify.
l. 188, Table 2: I suggest to use Various Demonstration Directions", instead of Demonstration Direction
l. 191: Please include in the text information about what you understand by "learning cue".
l. 191-192: How do you define what an appropriate number of learning cues is? What is the rationale for this? Please include this in the text.
l. 203-206: This sentence should be reformulated in a different way, it is hard to understand.
l. 261-263: please provide a short explanation in the text or a reference for the "Bachman ladder climbing", as this is not a concept known to everyone.
l. 392-393: The followings are dance teachers’ comments (or: comments from dance teachers)
l. 473: should be cliché questions
l. 464-498:This comment has not been addressed in the manuscript:
Suggestions 1-4 are very general and are mostly not derived from the results and the findings of this study. The could be made based on findings from a literature review, but not from this study. Only suggestion 5 is based on findings from this study, so the conclusion should focus on these aspects.
Author Response
Review report 2
General comment:
Section 5 Results and Discussion has been split into sections 5 Results discussion and 6 Discussion, which is generally fine. But the new section 5 should be named 5 Results. Further on and most importantly, section 6 has to be be revised, as there are several parts and tables that can be found already in section 5!
I 170: named as 5. Results
I 214 - 424: Section 6. Discussion was revised as you suggested..
Specific comments:
l. 162: "The frequency of each item of the QMTPS at the four time for each teacher obtained using the QMTPS analysis frame was calculated and recorded 163 as a percentage, and finally, the total QMTPS score for each teacher was calculated.": It still remains unclear to me what 'at the four time' means here. Please clarify.
Four times means that teachers' classes were videotaped four times. Teachers' teaching behavior analysis was conducted through total four classes.
188, Table 2: I suggest to use Various Demonstration Directions", instead of Demonstration Direction
I 193: changed to “various demonstration directions”
191: Please include in the text information about what you understand by "learning cue".
300: I added this sentence as you suggested.
“A learning cue is a word or short phrase that identifies the critical elements or features of a motor skill or task (Rink, 2014). Learning cues call the learner's attention to key elements of a skill and project a clear visual image of a skill for the learner.”
- 191-192: How do you define what an appropriate number of learning cues is? What is the rationale for this? Please include this in the text.
323. “Rink(2014) suggested that middle and high school students should have less than 3-4 teaching cues by limited cognitive ability and memory capacity.”
203-206: This sentence should be reformulated in a different way, it is hard to understand.
209. changed the followings:
“When considering the standard of efficient teaching behavior as 55 points, the difference between high and low scores was found to be large by more than 30 points.”
261-263: please provide a short explanation in the text or a reference for the "Bachman ladder climbing", as this is not a concept known to everyone.
253: provide some info. about it.
“A Bachman ladder task is used for motor learning area and physical education. It requires climbing ability. The ladder is free standing (there is no support), therefore, participants were required to balance themselves while ascending the rungs of ladder. This task was chosen for its challenge, feasibility, and ecological validity. Also, the task allows a precise measurement of the participants’ performance.”
392-393: The followings are dance teachers’ comments (or: comments from dance teachers)
287, 362: changed as you suggested. “comments from dance teachers”- 473: should be cliché questions
I omitted some sentences. There is no more cliché questions.
l. 464-498: This comment has not been addressed in the manuscript:
Suggestions 1-4 are very general and are mostly not derived from the results and the findings of this study. The could be made based on findings from a literature review, but not from this study. Only suggestion 5 is based on findings from this study, so the conclusion should focus on these aspects."
I 402-424. As you suggested, I omitted 1-4 and added some sentences for conclusion.
*** Thank you very much for your kind suggestions and recommendation. Once again, we truly appreciate your constructive review that help our paper has improved much professionally and academically.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for revising the manuscript in this appropriate way!
There remain 4 minor issues to be addressed.
Specific comments:
1. l. 162: "The frequency of each item of the QMTPS at the four time for each teacher obtained using the QMTPS analysis frame was calculated and recorded 163 as a percentage, and finally, the total QMTPS score for each teacher was calculated.": It still remains unclear to me what 'at the four time' means here. Please clarify.
Four times means that teachers' classes were videotaped four times. Teachers' teaching behavior analysis was conducted through total four classes.
Thank you for the explanation, but this still not becomes clear from your text. Please reformulate in order that a reader can understand what is meant.
2. l. 182, table 2: Please capitalize 'Various Demonstration Directions'
3. l. 188: Please include in the text information about what you understand by "learning cue".
l. 300: I added this sentence as you suggested.
Please explain or define the term shortly when it is used for the first time (l. 154)
4. 189-190: Please indicate here in the text at least what the appropriate number of learning cues is (3-4).
Author Response
Thank you for your kind suggestion and recommendation for this manuscript. I changed some sentences and words based on your comments:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- l. 162: "The frequency of each item of the QMTPS at the four time for each teacher obtained using the QMTPS analysis frame was calculated and recorded 163 as a percentage, and finally, the total QMTPS score for each teacher was calculated.":
It still remains unclear to me what 'at the four time' means here. Please clarify.
- 4-20: The frequency of each item of the QMTPS in the four classes for each teacher obtained using the QMTPS analysis frame was calculated and recorded as a percentage, and finally, the total QMTPS score for each teacher was calculated.
- l. 182, table 2: Please capitalize 'Various Demonstration Directions'
P.5 -14: I capitalized direction --> Directions
- l. 188: Please include in the text information about what you understand by "learning cue".
Please explain or define the term shortly when it is used for the first time (l. 154)
P.3-25: I add some explanation about learning cue. A learning cue is a word or short phrase that identifies the critical elements or features of a motor skill or task [5]. Learning cues call the learner's attention to key elements of a skill and project a clear visual image of a skill for the learner. Learning cues play a role in guiding students' preparation for action and provide the link between actions.
- 189-190: Please indicate here in the text at least what the appropriate number of learning cues is (3-4).
p.8-8: I added the short information about the appropriate number of learning cues which was suggested by Rink(2014). Rink [5, 6] suggested that middle and high school students should have less than 3-4 teaching cues based on their limited cognitive ability and memory capacity.
Once again, thank you very much for your kind consideration on this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
