Characterization of Emotions Linked to the Study of a STEAM Project Contextualized in a Controversial Heritage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study discusses the classification of emotions into different categories (epistemic, thematic, achievement, and social), and it distinguishes between positive and negative emotions. However, it does not mention the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), a widely used tool for measuring affect in research on emotions.

It might be relevant to reference PANAS in the theoretical framework, as it could provide a well-established basis for discussing and measuring emotions in an educational context. Including it could also enhance comparability with other studies and strengthen the methodological rigor of the emotional classification used in the research, especially considering studies on emotions published in the last five years.

It seems that the methodology section does not provide enough detail on how the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data was conducted. While the results present a frequency distribution of the emotions expressed by students, it is not entirely clear how the data were processed or what type of analysis was performed to interpret these findings.

It would be helpful for the authors to provide a more detailed explanation of the methodological approaches used for both qualitative analysis (how emotions were coded, whether predefined or emerging categories were used, how the validity of the analysis was ensured) and quantitative analysis (whether any statistical tests were applied beyond frequency counts, whether correlations or significant patterns were explored).

Expanding this information would improve transparency and allow readers to better understand the analytical process and the robustness of the study’s findings.

Future research could explore gender patterns in the emotions expressed by students, particularly in their responses to technological activities, teamwork, or interaction with heritage. Including this dimension would allow for a deeper understanding of potential differences in the emotional experience of learning in a STEAM context, providing valuable insights for designing more inclusive and equitable educational strategies.

Additionally, the methodology could benefit from greater clarity regarding the analytical tools used. It would be useful for the authors to describe whether they employed techniques such as content analysis, inductive/deductive coding, or if they applied any statistical tests to identify relationships between variables. For example, using Chi-square or correlation analysis could have allowed for the evaluation of associations between certain types of emotions and factors such as gender, familiarity with technology, or prior interest in the subject.

Exploring these aspects in future research would help enhance methodological rigor and provide more detailed findings on the relationship between emotions and learning in STEAM environments.

Author Response

Comment 1:

[The study discusses the classification of emotions into different categories (epistemic, thematic, achievement, and social), and it distinguishes between positive and negative emotions. However, it does not mention the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), a widely used tool for measuring affect in research on emotions.
It might be relevant to reference PANAS in the theoretical framework, as it could provide a well-established basis for discussing and measuring emotions in an educational context. Including it could also enhance comparability with other studies and strengthen the methodological rigor of the emotional classification used in the research, especially considering studies on emotions published in the last five years.]

Response 1:

In response to this suggestion, we added a reference to the PANAS instrument. The sentence “and tools such as the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Gil-Madrona et al., 2019) are commonly used in this context” was inserted after “Many studies focus on determining the presence of positive and negative emotions,”. The updated sentence now reads: “Many studies focus on determining the presence of positive and negative emotions, and tools such as the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Gil-Madrona et al., 2019) are commonly used in this context, yet classifying emotions solely based on their valence provides limited information (Pérez-Bueno et al., 2024).” This addition addresses the reviewer’s concern and acknowledges the relevance of PANAS, while clarifying our decision to focus on academic emotions in this study. (page 2, lines 43-46)

Comment 2:

[It seems that the methodology section does not provide enough detail on how the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data was conducted. While the results present a frequency distribution of the emotions expressed by students, it is not entirely clear how the data were processed or what type of analysis was performed to interpret these findings.

It would be helpful for the authors to provide a more detailed explanation of the methodological approaches used for both qualitative analysis (how emotions were coded, whether predefined or emerging categories were used, how the validity of the analysis was ensured) and quantitative analysis (whether any statistical tests were applied beyond frequency counts, whether correlations or significant patterns were explored).]

Response 2

In response to this comment, we clarified the process through which students’ emotions were coded. We specified that a deductive coding approach was used, based on a predefined framework of academic emotions. The classification relied on the open-ended responses provided by students in both the questionnaires and the field notebooks, and the interpretation of these responses was guided by the typology of epistemic, thematic, achievement, and social emotions. As shown in Table 1, each emotion was categorized according to the context and meaning conveyed in the student’s explanation, not based solely on the emotion label. The revised paragraph begins at Page 7, Line 246-257 and reads as follows:

 

“The emotions were coded based on the specific activity in which they emerged and their relationship with learning, using a deductive coding approach. This process relied on the open-ended responses provided by students in both the questionnaires and the field notebooks, which were interpreted in light of the academic emotions framework. For example, as shown in Table 1, curiosity was mostly classified as an epistemic emotion, as it was often linked to the discovery of patterns in the collected data; pride was mostly coded as an achievement emotion, due to the satisfaction expressed after successfully completing a task; surprise was typically identified as a thematic emotion, as it was related to the study content; and sympathy was generally categorized as a social emotion, given its frequent connection with peer interactions. The frequency of each academic emotion category was then calculated to identify general patterns in the students' affective responses across the different phases of the educational sequence.”

Regarding the quantitative treatment of the data, we clarified that the only statistical method used was frequency analysis. The aim was to identify general patterns in the types of academic emotions expressed across different phases and activities of the educational sequence.

Comment 3:

[Future research could explore gender patterns in the emotions expressed by students, particularly in their responses to technological activities, teamwork, or interaction with heritage. Including this dimension would allow for a deeper understanding of potential differences in the emotional experience of learning in a STEAM context, providing valuable insights for designing more inclusive and equitable educational strategies.

Additionally, the methodology could benefit from greater clarity regarding the analytical tools used. It would be useful for the authors to describe whether they employed techniques such as content analysis, inductive/deductive coding, or if they applied any statistical tests to identify relationships between variables. For example, using Chi-square or correlation analysis could have allowed for the evaluation of associations between certain types of emotions and factors such as gender, familiarity with technology, or prior interest in the subject.

Exploring these aspects in future research would help enhance methodological rigor and provide more detailed findings on the relationship between emotions and learning in STEAM environments.]

Response 3

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have added a brief closing paragraph to the conclusions section acknowledging the potential value of exploring gender-based differences in students’ emotional responses. While our study did not include inferential statistical analyses, due to its exploratory nature and the sample size, we agree that future research could incorporate this perspective to enhance inclusivity in STEAM learning environments. Furthermore, we recognize that investigating associations between emotional categories and variables such as gender, technological familiarity, or prior interest could help enhance methodological rigor and provide a more detailed understanding of the emotional dimensions of learning in STEAM contexts. The new paragraph, added at Page 14, Line 519-524, reads as follows:

“Future research could further investigate gender-based differences in students’ emotional responses, particularly in relation to technological activities, collaborative work, or engagement with controversial heritage. Exploring this dimension would provide a deeper understanding of affective experiences in STEAM education and contribute to the design of more inclusive and equitable learning environments.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Authors should specify the ethics of the research, given that research has been conducted with people. This information can be described in section 4.1. Context and participants.  

2. Section 4.2. Research Design does not really describe the study design. The authors should specify the design of the study (experimental, quasi-experimental, etc), and specify the reasons for this design. 

3. Likewise, the qualitative design of the study should be better specified.

4. A detailed description of the intervention should be given, which will help the replicability of the study. This can be done in a specific subsection within section 4. Material and Methods.

5. It is necessary to establish clear references for the information, for example when the following is stated: “The questionnaire 207 underwent a validation process, obtaining a Leiss' kappa coefficient of 0.84, 208 ensuring high inter-rater reliability”. Which authors or from where has the importance of this value been obtained. 

6. They should describe more clearly and precisely all the data analysis instruments used. 

7. In the results section, whenever a specific example of the study is reflected, it is necessary to establish the indicator of the sample from which it comes. A simple way to do this is to describe it in parentheses, such as the following: “It was gratifying to see how our model per-275 fectly represented what we learned in class” (student X). 

8. There are results that have not been discussed with previous studies. The authors should review and discuss more concretely some results. 

9. The authors should make a later section of the conclusions where the limitations of the study are established, as well as future lines of research.

Author Response

Comment 1:

[Authors should specify the ethics of the research, given that research has been conducted with people. This information can be described in section 4.1. Context and participants.]

Response 1:

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. In response, we have added a brief statement at the end of Section 4.1 to clarify the ethical procedures followed during the study. Specifically, we explain that students’ families or legal guardians were informed prior to the intervention and provided informed consent. We also state that the data were collected and processed anonymously and confidentially, in accordance with the ethical principles of educational research within the institutional framework. The revised passage, now appearing on Page 5, Lines 187 to 190, reads:

“Prior to the intervention, students’ families or legal guardians were informed about the study and provided informed consent. The data were collected and processed anonymously and confidentially, in accordance with the ethical principles of educational research within the institutional framework”.

Comments 2 and 3:

[2. Section 4.2. Research Design does not really describe the study design. The authors should specify the design of the study (experimental, quasi-experimental, etc), and specify the reasons for this design.

3. Likewise, the qualitative design of the study should be better specified.]

Response 2 and 3:

We thank the reviewer for these complementary suggestions. In response, we revised the beginning of Section 4.2 to clearly specify that the study follows a qualitative case study design and to better define its qualitative nature. We now describe the methodological approach as descriptive and interpretative, detailing that students’ open-ended responses were analyzed, coded and categorized based on the emotions expressed and their causes. The updated paragraph, inserted at Page 5, Lines 192–197, reads:

“This study follows a qualitative case study design that analyzes, codes and categorizes students’ responses in relation to the emotions expressed and their causes, within the framework of a STEAM-based educational intervention contextualized in controversial heritage. It adopts a descriptive and interpretative approach, based on qualitative sources such as open-ended questionnaires and field notebooks, to understand the emotional dimension of learning in a specific and contextualized experience.”

Comment 4:

[A detailed description of the intervention should be given, which will help the replicability of the study. This can be done in a specific subsection within section 4. Material and Methods.]

Response 4:

In response, we expanded Section 4.2 to briefly contextualize the educational intervention. A paragraph was added immediately after the methodological description to clarify that the study is part of a broader interdisciplinary project implemented in a secondary school. This addition outlines the general structure of the intervention and refers readers to three published chapters where the full learning sequence—including its phases, contents, and implementation—is described in detail. The following paragraph was added on Page 5, Lines 197–202:

“The study was part of a broader interdisciplinary project implemented in a secondary school, combining classroom activities with fieldwork and structured around inquiry, modeling, and the use of sensors. While this article focuses on students’ emotional responses, the complete educational sequence is described in detail in Campina-López et al. (2025a, 2025b, 2025c).”

Comment 5:

[It is necessary to establish clear references for the information, for example when the following is stated: “The questionnaire underwent a validation process, obtaining a Leiss' kappa coefficient of 0.84, ensuring high inter-rater reliability.” Which authors or from where has the importance of this value been obtained?]

Response 5:

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. In response, we clarified the interpretation of the kappa coefficient by explicitly referencing Gwet (2021), who defines values above 0.80 as indicating substantial to almost perfect inter-rater agreement. The revised sentence, located on Page 5, Lines 223–226, now reads:

“The questionnaire underwent a validation process, obtaining a Fleiss’ kappa coefficient of 0.84, which, according to Gwet (2021), indicates substantial to almost perfect inter-rater reliability.”

 The corresponding reference has been added to the bibliography.

Comment 6:

[They should describe more clearly and precisely all the data analysis instruments used.]

Response 6

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We would like to clarify that the analytical instruments used in the study are already described in detail across Sections 4.3 and 4.4. The second-order instruments (Figure 1 and Table 1), presented on Pages 5 and 6, Lines 230-257, served as the conceptual framework for interpreting and categorizing the emotions expressed by students. These were used as the main instruments of analysis. Additionally, MAXQDA software was employed as a support tool to organize and manage qualitative coding (Page 7, Line 258).

Comment 7

In the results section, whenever a specific example of the study is reflected, it is necessary to establish the indicator of the sample from which it comes. A simple way to do this is to describe it in parentheses, such as the following: “It was gratifying to see how our model perfectly represented what we learned in class” (student X).

 

Response 7

[There are results that have not been discussed with previous studies. The authors should review and discuss more concretely some results.]

Comment 8

In the results section, whenever a specific example of the study is reflected, it is necessary to establish the indicator of the sample from which it comes. A simple way to do this is to describe it in parentheses, such as the following: “It was gratifying to see how our model perfectly represented what we learned in class” (student X).

Response 8

We thank the reviewer for this constructive observation. In response, we strengthened the discussion of our results by integrating relevant references that contextualize and support our findings. Specifically, in Section 5.1 (Page 8, Lines 295–299), we expanded the interpretation of achievement emotions by linking them to students’ motivation, self-efficacy, and the adoption of educational technologies. Citing Stephan et al. (2019) and Wang et al. (2024), we acknowledged that achievement emotions such as pride and enjoyment are associated with the successful resolution of technical challenges and can reinforce students’ confidence and engagement with digital tools.

Additionally, in the conclusions section (Page 13, Lines 477–494), we added a brief reference to the role of emotional support in technological tasks. Following Stephan et al. (2019), we emphasized that the effective implementation of educational technologies requires not only technical guidance but also attention to students’ emotional responses, particularly when dealing with unfamiliar or complex tools.

Comment 9

[The authors should make a later section of the conclusions where the limitations of the study are established, as well as future lines of research.]

Response 9

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we expanded the final part of the Conclusions section to explicitly address both the limitations of the study and future research directions. We clarified that time constraints during the implementation of the educational sequence constituted a real limitation, as they reduced students’ opportunities to fully engage with the technological components of the project. Additionally, we acknowledged that the specific and context-bound nature of the sample may limit the transferability of the findings. In terms of future research, we proposed exploring gender-based differences in students’ emotional responses, particularly in relation to technological activities, teamwork, and engagement with controversial heritage. These changes are reflected in the revised paragraph on Page 13, Lines 489–492.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Characterization of Emotions Linked to the Study of a STEAM Project Contextualized in a Controversial Heritage" presents a well-conceived and timely qualitative case study exploring academic emotions in the context of a STEAM-based educational sequence, integrating inquiry and modelling within a controversial heritage setting. The study offers novel insights into the role of epistemic and thematic emotions in fostering critical thinking and interdisciplinary learning.

Strengths:

• The theoretical foundation is rich, up-to-date, and rooted in recent literature.
• Integrating technological tools with heritage education is innovative and responds well to curricular demands.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• Methodological Detail: It would be beneficial to explain the activity's methodology more precisely, including more precise information about the educational sequence implemented. A more detailed description of the didactic sequence's phases, tasks, and timing would help readers better understand the context and instructional design.
• Discussion: While the results are well-organized by emotional category, the discussion would benefit from a deeper analytical connection between the emotional patterns observed and the specific pedagogical strategies used. Consider discussing more explicitly why certain emotions emerged in response to particular activities, moving beyond descriptive trends to interpretive insights.
• Conclusion: Although the conclusion is comprehensive, it could be made more concise and focused. Emphasizing the practical implications for educators and providing more precise recommendations for future research would enhance its impact.

Author Response

Comment 1:

[It would be beneficial to explain the activity's methodology more precisely, including more precise information about the educational sequence implemented. A more detailed description of the didactic sequence's phases, tasks, and timing would help readers better understand the context and instructional design.]

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion to improve the methodological clarity of the article. In response, we have added a paragraph on Page 5, between Lines 197 and 202, that situates the study within a broader interdisciplinary project implemented in a secondary school. This new section outlines the structure of the educational sequence, organized around inquiry, modeling, and the use of sensors, and clarifies that full details of the phases, activities, and implementation are available in three published book chapters. These citations (Campina-López et al., 2025a, 2025b, 2025c) have been included to provide readers with access to the complete instructional design and to enhance the replicability and contextual understanding of the intervention.

Comment 2:

[While the results are well-organized by emotional category, the discussion would benefit from a deeper analytical connection between the emotional patterns observed and the specific pedagogical strategies used. Consider discussing more explicitly why certain emotions emerged in response to particular activities, moving beyond descriptive trends to interpretive insights.]

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive suggestion. In response, we have enriched the discussion by incorporating a concise interpretive paragraph that explicitly connects the emotional patterns observed with the pedagogical strategies implemented. This addition emphasizes how inquiry and modeling fostered epistemic emotions, how group work elicited social emotions, and how goal-oriented and critical activities triggered achievement and thematic emotions respectively. This new content has been included on page 7, lines 341–346 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 3:

[Although the conclusion is comprehensive, it could be made more concise and focused. Emphasizing the practical implications for educators and providing more precise recommendations for future research would enhance its impact.”

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have revised the final part of the conclusions to ensure they are more focused and actionable. Specifically, we now emphasize the practical implications for educational practice, including the importance of balancing autonomy and guidance in technological tasks, improving group coordination, and reinforcing the emotional dimension in STEAM learning. Furthermore, we have incorporated concrete recommendations for future research, particularly concerning gender-based differences in students’ emotional experiences. These updates are reflected on page 14, lines 519–524.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your responses to the suggestions and comments from the previous reviews. Given the input during the review process, the modifications made by the authors are appropriate and consistent with the needs of the manuscript.

In view of this, the manuscript can be considered for acceptance in its current state.

Best regards