Perspectives of Hybrid Performing Arts Education in the Post-Pandemic Era: An Empirical Study in Hong Kong
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Is a relevant study, the conclusion and the results are correct and similar to studies on the same topics, it reflects the current reality. It is indicated to resume the research after 1 and 2 years, in order to re-evaluate the trends in art education
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your careful reading. Your comments are highly appreciated!
Best regards,
Dr.Li
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, you conducted a very interesting survey. My main concern and suggestion would be: use statistical methods to prove the significance of your findings. It would help you get more credit to your research in the future (for example, try to prove, if the findings, such as differences in various groups are significant or not, what is the practical effect of your findings etc....).
If possible, I would suggest to make a separate section: Methodology, in which a questionnaire and its characteristics, including forms of distribution, timing etc. should be described.
In the future, it might be interesting, if you described particular teaching and learning methods in various fields of artistic education (music vs. dance vs. drama etc.), since you have access to that kind of data.
For correction, please check minor misspellings, grammatical issues, such as:
line 114: missing comma (Huang and Hsiao, 2012).
line 151: two commas (improvement, , researchers)
I wish you lots of inspiration and energy for your future research activities.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
MDPI_sustainability-1744672 -peer-review-v1 Reviewer 1 Comments
COVID-19 has been ongoing for more than two and a half years, and the education sector continues to study this issue. Even though people’s experiences are improving, there are still a number of issues that must be addressed. Hence, the importance of this research should be emphasized. Additionally, the research objectives set by the authors and the methodology adopted by them are reasonable. Even so, we believe there are still the following issues that the authors need to address in a scientific paper.
1. It is suggested that the author review what actions other performing arts schools in other countries or regions have taken in response to the pandemic? As well as the benefits and drawbacks of these measures. These measures may inspire and influence the authors to conduct the present study.
2. Line 67-70: Perhaps the authors have forgotten to indicate the contents of section 3 and should supplement it.
3. It is too long for the subtitle in Section 4. The author should replace it with language that is more precise and concise.
4. In this study, 408 students were invited to participate. Therefore, is the feedback provided by individual students considered representative? If so, is it the consensus of all students? More clarification is required from the author. There will be a direct impact on the credibility and relevance of the findings and conclusions.
5. We recommend that the author describe how the questions in the questionnaire were developed. Specifically, whether these questions are supported by relevant literature. Due to space limitations, authors may also present the questionnaire in its entirety as an appendix or provide the URL of the questionnaire.
6. In the fourth chapter, the authors have provided a relatively complete analysis and discussion. Therefore, it is recommended that the authors summarize the conclusions of the study in a more concise phonetic induction in the fifth chapter. Subsequently, the authors were asked to discuss possible solutions and future research plans in light of the limitations of the study.
7. The authors are invited to pay attention to the format requirements of this journal. It should be noted that references are not presented in APA format.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the authors doing their effort to make great improve of this manuscript. Nevertheless, But the revised version draft still remains some problems, some of which require further explained and some of which need to be clarified and revised.
1. As the journal suggests: A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work. We strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts. Therefore, the abstract does not need to be divided into two paragraphs.
2. Line 40-41 and Line 148-150: There is a repetition of two sentences. Furthermore, we suggest the authors provide additional evidence. Is it true that such a pattern existed prior to the pandemic?
3. In the same vein, we suggest placing the questionnaire in an appendix as we did last time. On the other hand, we recommend that the authors further explain the basis and origin of the relevant questions in the questionnaire.
4. Despite the fact that the layout needs to comply with the journal’s specifications, it can be altered after the article is accepted. We hope, however, that authors will review the layout against the template of the journal. For example, lines 201-208, which are clearly problematic. Also, headings that are separate from paragraphs, or pages that are unnecessarily blank, need to be corrected.
5. Line 518-532: Why is this passage italicized? Is this the author's perspective? Further explanation is required.
6. The authors are encouraged to include a subsection in chapter IV that analyzes the results of the survey.
7. Once again, the authors need to be carefully review the journal’s template, as the references are formatted incorrectly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the author for being able to make the manuscript has been greatly improved. However, the following suggestions still hope the authors will pay attention to:
1. Again, authors are reminded of the guidelines and requirements of the journal. Abstracts do not need to be divided into two paragraphs.
2. Line 40~41: This issue has been raised twice already. However, the author may have accidentally overlooked it. Following the conclusion of COVID-19, many things face great challenges. To this end, we sincerely hope that before this article is published, the authors can provide evidence in moderation to demonstrate that this phenomenon has not occurred in the past.
3. Line 200~208: The author may have overlooked this detail. The format of this passage needs to be corrected.
4. The devil is in the details. The author is at this stage focusing on the content of the article, as is reflected in the revisions he has made. As an academic paper, however, its format and detailing are equally important. For instance, the figure and caption should not be split between two pages; the font is not uniform; and some references remain incomplete. We strongly recommend that authors refer to the journal’s template to read the full text once again in detail. This work should not be lost to the editors of journals, even though they will do a thorough proofreading before publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
