Students’ Psychological Analysis for Classroom Teaching Strategies of Art Songs Based on STEAM Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the effort made by the authors to address the aspects mentioned in the first review. However, I must say that my main concerns about the article remain.

1) While the authors add a brief description of the differences in the didactic methodology of the experimental group and the control group, this is insufficient. Without knowing the complete sequence of actions and activities carried out, it does not seem possible for me to discern whether the derived conclusions make sense or not.

2) From the description provided about the teaching methodology, I consider that it is not possible to conclude that "the results manifest that the classroom teaching strategy for Chinese and Japanese art songs based on the STEAM education philosophy positively and significantly impacts students". In my opinion, as the results are described, I am unable to discern to what extent the improvement in results, interest, and motivation, among others, is due to the implementation of STEAM education or to the implementation of active teaching methodologies such as, for example, cooperative learning. STEAM education encompasses both the use of these types of methodologies and the interconnection of different areas of knowledge. In my opinion, to be able to conclude that the implementation of STEAM education is responsible for the obtained results, it would be necessary to have a control group in which active methodologies are implemented, but without interconnecting contents from different areas of knowledge.

3) The writing of the text continues to be difficult to follow and understand. The first paragraph already occupies a full page (more than 50 lines), something that is repeated in different parts of the text and greatly complicates its reading.

4) The authors indicate in their response that they have removed the references to Chinese songs. However, I still find these references in different parts of the text (see, for example, line 492).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English has been improved. However, as I have already mentioned in the Comments for authors, the writing of the text continues to be difficult to follow and understand. The first paragraph already occupies a full page (more than 50 lines), something that is repeated in different parts of the text and greatly complicates its reading.

Author Response

1) While the authors add a brief description of the differences in the didactic methodology of the experimental group and the control group, this is insufficient. Without knowing the complete sequence of actions and activities carried out, it does not seem possible for me to discern whether the derived conclusions make sense or not.

Reply: Thank you for your feedback. This revision has emphasized the important differences between the experimental group and the control group in teaching activities, particularly the emphasis on collaboration, field exploration, and creative expression in the experimental group under the STEAM education philosophy, by providing a detailed description of the teaching activities between the experimental group and the experimental group. These design differences help evaluate the potential positive impact of the STEAM education model on students' learning psychology and overall quality. Please refer to the second paragraph of Section 4.3 for details.

2) From the description provided about the teaching methodology, I consider that it is not possible to conclude that "the results manifest that the classroom teaching strategy for Chinese and Japanese art songs based on the STEAM education philosophy positively and significantly impacts students". In my opinion, as the results are described, I am unable to discern to what extent the improvement in results, interest, and motivation, among others, is due to the implementation of STEAM education or to the implementation of active teaching methodologies such as, for example, cooperative learning. STEAM education encompasses both the use of these types of methodologies and the interconnection of different areas of knowledge. In my opinion, to be able to conclude that the implementation of STEAM education is responsible for the obtained results, it would be necessary to have a control group in which active methodologies are implemented, but without interconnecting contents from different areas of knowledge.

Reply: Thank you for your feedback. A control group has been added in this revision, which will implement active teaching methods in the experimental group, but will not introduce interrelationships between different knowledge fields to ensure similarity between the experimental group and control group in terms of disciplinary background and foundation. In the methodology section, we describe in detail the design plan of the control group, including goal selection, similarity of experimental processes, differences in teaching methods, and differences in classroom design. We emphasize the role of control groups as a control, reflecting the influence of traditional music education. Please refer to the third paragraph of Section 4.3 for details.

3) The writing of the text continues to be difficult to follow and understand. The first paragraph already occupies a full page (more than 50 lines), something that is repeated in different parts of the text and greatly complicates its reading.

Reply: Thank you for your feedback. This revision has further adjusted the content of the first paragraph of the introduction section to improve its readability and logical coherence, ensuring a more natural and smooth transition between paragraphs. We try to express the drawbacks of exam-oriented education in a concise and clear manner, advocate a reexamination of the education system, pay more attention to cultivating students' practical abilities, creative thinking, and problem-solving skills, and pay more attention to the interests and needs of individual students, making education more closely related to real life and practice. Please refer to the first paragraph of the introduction section for details.

4) The authors indicate in their response that they have removed the references to Chinese songs. However, I still find these references in different parts of the text (see, for example, line 492).

Reply: Thank you for your feedback. This revision has carefully reviewed the text and removed necessary references to Chinese and Japanese art songs to ensure consistency between the statements in the text and the actual research content. Please refer to the title, abstract, content, and conclusion section for details.

The quality of English has been improved. However, as I have already mentioned in the Comments for authors, the writing of the text continues to be difficult to follow and understand. The first paragraph already occupies a full page (more than 50 lines), something that is repeated in different parts of the text and greatly complicates its reading.

Reply: Thank you for your feedback. This revision has further adjusted and simplified the text to ensure that the research background information in the first paragraph of the introduction section is clearer and less repetitive and lengthy in expression. And we focus on improving the logical transition between paragraphs to improve overall readability. Please refer to the first paragraph of the introduction section for details.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made substantial enhancements to the paper's structure, resulting in its transformation into a more scientific document. The arguments substantiate the claims put forth, and the paper exhibits a succinct and logical organization.

However, lines 32 to 58 lack any explicit citation, leaving ambiguity as to whether the written content represents the author's opinion or is derived from existing literature. This primarily pertains to a culture that is focused on exams i.e. exam-priented culture. The aforementioned section necessitates paraphrasing to clearly indicate the author's perspective or accurately quoting the relevant refrains.

Author Response

The authors have made substantial enhancements to the paper's structure, resulting in its transformation into a more scientific document. The arguments substantiate the claims put forth, and the paper exhibits a succinct and logical organization.

However, lines 32 to 58 lack any explicit citation, leaving ambiguity as to whether the written content represents the author's opinion or is derived from existing literature. This primarily pertains to a culture that is focused on exams i.e. exam-priented culture. The aforementioned section necessitates paraphrasing to clearly indicate the author's perspective or accurately quoting the relevant refrains.

Reply: Thank you for your feedback. This revision has paraphrased the content from lines 32 to 58, and clearly and concisely expressed the drawbacks of "exam-oriented education" in this article, which advocates examination of the education system, focusing more on cultivating students' practical abilities, creative thinking, and problem-solving skills, as well as paying more attention to their individual interests and needs, making education more closely related to practical life and practice the viewpoint. Please refer to the first paragraph of the introduction section for details.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a commendable and insightful exploration of the intersection between STEAM education and the teaching strategies for Chinese and Japanese art songs. The thorough analysis of the STEAM educational philosophy, coupled with practical teaching strategies for art songs, makes this study a significant contribution to the field of educational research. The authors have adeptly introduced the concept of STEAM education, providing a comprehensive understanding that lays a strong foundation for the subsequent discussion on teaching strategies. The innovative approach of integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics into the teaching of art songs is particularly noteworthy. It reflects a forward-thinking perspective that aligns well with contemporary educational demands, emphasizing the importance of holistic development in students. The exploration of students' learning psychology in relation to these teaching strategies is a highlight of this work, offering deep insights into how educational approaches can be tailored to better meet the developmental needs of students. The use of a questionnaire survey to construct an evaluation system for the STEAM educational concept adds a layer of empirical credibility to the research. The findings, showing significant improvements in students' teamwork, interpersonal skills, and learning interest, underscore the effectiveness of the teaching strategies proposed. The statistical analysis, indicated by the P values, provides a robust proof of the correlation between the STEAM approach and enhanced student outcomes. Moreover, this paper's relevance extends beyond the specific context of teaching art songs. It provides valuable theoretical and practical implications for broader educational strategies and models, particularly in higher education. The assessment of STEAM education's application in this unique context offers a novel perspective that could inspire similar research and practice in other educational fields. In summary, this paper is a remarkable blend of theoretical exploration and practical application, offering new insights and methodological approaches that are both relevant and timely in the field of education. It stands as a valuable resource for educators and researchers alike, looking to innovate and improve teaching strategies in line with contemporary educational philosophies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

nonne

Author Response

Reply: Thank you for carefully reading the article.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very well and clearly presented. However, the result of the research indicates that further research should be done. The authors should focus more on the presentation of their results. For example, is it the first time that such a type of research was conducted? What is the contribution to the Japan and China' literature? 

1.    What is the main question addressed by the research? The main question is how students respond (psychological analysis) when they are taught Chinese and Japanese Art Songs through STEAM Education.

2.    Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? More relevant than original. The authors did systematic work, but they don't focus on the presentation of their results. Indeed, the research addresses a specific gap in the field, but it is still in a preliminary stage and further research should be done.

3.    What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? It can be used as a hit for further research.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? The authors should clarify more the methodologies implemented in the groups in terms of STEAM education.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? The title of the manuscript coincides with the main question posed. However, the conclusions of the research are poor compared to the expected ones.

6. Are the references appropriate? Most of them.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. Some tables and figures are not in accordance with the information presented in the text and should change appropriately.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, a study of teaching strategies in the classroom of Chinese and Japanese art songs as well as a psychological analysis of students under the framework of STEAM education are performed. In particular, the work focuses on analyzing how different aspects, such as tenacity, empathy, courage and risk tolerance, interest in learning and teamwork and interpersonal relationship are affected by the implementation of a STEAM education model in the learning of Chinese and Japanese art songs.

Although the analysis of psychological aspects related to the learning methodology employed are a field of interest in education research, this study presents a number of issues that deserve to be pointed out.

1) To the best of my understanding, the authors pretend to analyze the influence of applying a STEAM education on different psychological aspects of students. In this sense, the authors show in Figure 2 an outline of a teaching strategy for Chinese and Japanese art songs, and indicate in Section 4.1. that "In terms of teaching methods, multimedia technology is used, project-style teaching is applied, students are the teaching center [...]. Moreover, on the basis of projects or problems plans and schemes are formulated" (page 9). 

Nevertheless, I could not find in the text a detailed description of the strategies or methods used in the teaching-learning process. The explanation of Figure 2 is quite short while it shows, mainly, some contents connecting different disciplines related to the teaching of Chinese and Japanese art songs. There is no description of the activities that were carried out nor of the number of sessions of the implementation. In other words, I could not know which kind of actions were performed neither by the teacher, the researchers nor the students, during the implementation.

In order to be able to conclude whether STEAM education is responsible for, for example, an increase in the interest of students or not, it is of crucial relevance to clearly describe the activities carried out during the teaching-learning process. The motivation of students can be affected not only by the implementation of STEAM education but also by the methodology which has been put into practice. A methodology based on cooperative learning or problem-based learning, for instance, without any integration of different disciplines can be a source of motivation for students by itself.

2) The authors mention that the group of 128 students was "divided into an experimental group and a control group" (Page 8). They also indicate that "the students in the experimental group and the control group were surveyed by questionnaire" (page 9). However, as far as I could find, they do not detail which are the differences between the didactic experiences in both groups. Which were the differences in the teaching process between the two groups? Were there differences in the activities/methodologies that were implemented in each of them? I consider these questions to be particularly relevant in an empirical investigation such as the one presented and they should be answered in the article.

Nevertheless, and despite the relevance of having a control group, I did not observe any distinction between experimental and control group in the presentation of results: as far as I have been able to understand, the authors show the results of the 118 valid questionnaires out of the 128 starting questionnaires. I do not know if those results encompass both the control and the experimental group. In any case, I believe it is of crucial importance to compare the results of the control and the experimental group in order to shed light on the role of STEAM education in the student's performance, an aspect that one can not find in this work.

Instead, the authors do compare the results of the questionnaires before and after the application of STEAM education. However, they do not explicitely state what this implies. Was the same content/objective (i.e. learning Japanese art songs) addressed firstly by implementing a "traditional education" model and, after that, by implementing a STEAM education model? Or was the "traditional educacion" model implemented when addressing other contents/objectives of the subject and the implementation of the STEAM education model starts only when learning Japanese art songs? If the answer to the first question is yes, I do not believe one can conclude that "the idea of STEAM education has a positive significance for students' learning drive and comprehensive equality" (page 15) since it is possible that if the students have already worked on the contents before STEAM implementation, this could foster a better understanding of that content during the STEAM-based instruction, which may lead to an increase in the motivation not necessarily attributable to the use of the STEAM education model. On the other hand, if the answer to the second question is yes, I do not think it is appropriate to evaluate the success or failure of implementing STEAM education at the level of, for example, motivation or teamwork, by comparing two different contents at two distinct points in the teaching-learning process. In my opinion, the aim of this paper should be addressed by comparing the results of an experimental and a control group.

As a consequence of all I mentioned above, I do not believe that the results the authors present are enough to arrive to the general conclusion " STEAM education model can obviously promote students' teamwork and interpersonal skills" (page 12). Accorgind to the description of the research that is presented in this manuscript, in my opinion, I do not believe that the arguments and results are sufficient to assert that STEAM education is the factor responsible for the increase in the average scores of indicators related to teamwork and interpersonal processing and interest in learning. There may exist other non-analyzed factors, such as the type of methodology implemented regardless of whether an interdisciplinary combination of scientific, technological, educational, artistic, and mathematical disciplines is involved or not, that may also contribute to enhancing the interpersonal processing and motivation in learning of students.

In addition to the aforementioned points, the article presents other issues which I described below:

i) The writing of the manuscript could be improved for clarity. Just as an example, in lines 35 and 36 (at the beginning of the text), it is stated that "Because the integration of practical ability and knowledge discipline requires students to have a deep understanding and mastery of clasroom knowledge" (page 1). In my opinion, I do not believe that this sentence has any sense by itself (why does it start with "Because"?). However, if it does refer to the previous line, it should be separated by a comma, not a period.

The existence of extremely long paragraphs that cover a wide range of differing ideas (as for instance the paragraph that starts in page 2 and ends in page 4) also hinders comprehension.

ii) In the introduction, the authors make some categorical assertions that could be debated. For instance, it mentions that under the influence of the traditional concept of "exam-oriented education", " Teacher do not pay enough attention to the degree of students' independent participation, and students' knowledge is narrow, so students are at a loss when faced with problems in real situations" (page 1). In my view, there are many other factors, such as student-to-teacher ratio in classroom, that could also be the cause of those problems. Furthermore, the teacher could propose real-life contextualized activities promoting students' competences to face real situations. I believe that if the authors should support their statements with research in the literature.

iii) Section 2, Literature Review, presents results from various studies mainly concerning STEAM education. However, I find a lack of depth in the bibliographic review. In particular, I notice few references to works related to the connection between psychological aspects (e.g., motivation) and STEAM education or to the learning of Japanese or Chinese art songs and their relationship with motivation and/or STEAM education.

iv) The authors conclude Section 2, Literature Review, establishing that "the application of the STEAM teaching concept in music classroom is helpful to students' learning initiative and enthusiam, and can improve students' comprehensive ability" (page 4). As I mentioned before, I do not think that this statement is well supported by the works referenced in this section. And even if the authors could think that it is indeed well supported, that statement shows that the aim of the paper is already fulfilled. If it has been shown that STEAM teaching concept enhances students' learning initiative in music classroom, what is new in this paper?

v) In Section 3, Research Methodology, I also observe a significant lack of bibliographic support, especially in point 2 (page 4, lines 175 to 189). Nevertheless, what concerns me the most about this section is the absence of a detailed description of the methodology employed during the teaching process.

vi) In Section 3.3, within the Research Methodology, the design of questionnaires for teachers is mentioned. However, as far as I could understand, these questionnaires does not play any role further in the text and have no relevance to the study's methodology. I do not understand what these questionnaires have to do with the research methodology of the article.

vii) In Section 4, it is mentioned that the students are university-aged, specifically between 18 and 20 years old. However, I could not find any information about the degree or type of studies performed by those students in that section. In my opinion, this factor is highly relevant and I do not believe the conclusions derived from the analysis can be easily generalized to any type of students.

viii) The title, abstract, and all sections up to Section 4 state that the study focuses on Chinese and Japanese art songs. However, if I have understood correctly, the results presented are only related to the teaching of "The Japanese song "Koujouno Tsuki"" (page 8), and I could not find any other reference any Chinese song. I do not understand if the results also cover Chinese art songs as claimed in the text. If the work does not encompass both Chinese and Japanese art songs, it should not be presented as such. Otherwise, it should be explicitly stated.

ix) It is mentioned that the second and third-level indicators in Table 1 are "evaluated by combining different literature" (page 9). However, this explanation is insufficient. It is important to precisely and explicitly indicate the bibliographic sources from which they were obtained and how this "combination" was carried out. Moreover, the reasons for choosing these indicators over others should also be indicated.

x) According to Table 3, the results show that the average scores obtained for students' teamwork and interpersonal processing and interest in learning are higher before the implementation of the STEAM education model than after, meaning that they are opposite to the authors' conclusion! I suspect that this must be an typo in the table, but considering this is the only table showing the data that supports the research conclusion, I believe the authors should be more careful when preparing the manuscript.

xi) Figures 1, 6, and 7 are, in my opinion, irrelevant. Figure 1 merely illustrates the meaning of the STEAM acronym, which is already described in the text. Figures 6 and 7 contain information already included in Table 3, assuming that the issue mentioned in the previous point is indeed a typo, and therefore do not add any new information.

xii) In Section 5, Discussion, at some points it is unclear whether the reflection is on the results of this work or other works in the literature.

xiii) Also in Section 5, Discussion, it is stated that "The reasons for the differences in scores of diverse classes are analyzed" (page 14). However, I could not find such an analysis at any point. I do not see any comparison of results between different classes, and I do not see neither any explanation of the reasons behind it.

xiv) Citations are handled inconsistently throughout the text. Sometimes the year is indicated, and sometimes it is not.

xv) Finally, many of the citations in the text do not correspond with the list of references shown at the end. Starting from reference 9, there is a discrepancy of one between the text citations and the reference list (what is indicated as reference 9 in the text is reference 10 in the list, and so on).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As I mentioned in my previous comments, the writing of the manuscript could be improved for clarity and the existence of extremely long paragraphs that cover a wide range of differing ideas also hinders comprehension.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript urgently requires a comprehensive reorganization. The delineation between the methods, results, utilized tools, and tool analysis is unclear, as all these elements are grouped under a single section. Furthermore, the section labeled "methodology" incorrectly contains both the theoretical framework and the study context, rather than focusing solely on the methods employed and research design.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is fairly well written, presenting information clearly and effectively, though it could benefit from a touch more refinement for greater impact. Please improve the following things:

- abstract must be more clear in aspect of contribution

- please more highlited limitations and advantages of your approach

- I propose extend intro by using 10.3233/KES-230106 and 10.3233/KES-230082

- in conclusion future research directions should be extended

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none