Influence of Short Novels on Creation of Educational Programs in Literature: Taking A.P. Chekhov’s “The Chameleon” and Lu Xun’s “A Madman’s Diary” as Examples

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what can just be written as compared to something that can be written and referenced in research. I tried to keep track of all the claims made in the intro that have zero references and got to roughly 15. Some of these were loosely covered in the lit review but this was hard to track. Moreover, you mention roughly 11 difference theories many of which with no references when proposed, that I could find. Here's a list of just a couple "Fries Reading Difficulty Index", Translation Simplicity Hypothesis, PostHumanist critical theory. Also the points of interest "cultural understanding" and "critical interpretation" seem to appear out of nowhere. You can't place something in "" without a reference. You can't state something as truth without evidence. As a example "Traditional classroom teaching mainly relies on teacher lectures and collective analyses and lacks personalized learning mechanism, and fails to effectively respond to the differences in students'....." might be true but you present no evidence that this is the case. There are many examples of this, if you state something core to why this research matters you have to back it up, otherwise it's editorial.

Author Response

Comments 1: I tried to keep track of all the claims made in the intro that have zero references and got to roughly 15. Some of these were loosely covered in the lit review but this was hard to track.

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting this issue. In the revised version, we carefully reviewed all assertions in the introduction and ensured that each theoretical or factual statement was supported by appropriate citations. We added citations to foundational works, such as Sweller (1994) on cognitive load theory. Please refer to the references.

Comments 2: You mention roughly 11 different theories, many of which with no references when proposed.

Response 2: We appreciate this valuable feedback. In response, we have conducted a systematic review of all theoretical frameworks mentioned in the paper and compiled a comprehensive list (see internal document for details). In the paper, we have clearly: We have supplemented the references for established theories (such as Gadamer's hermeneutics, Sweller's cognitive load theory, and Latour's post-humanism). We have marked the concepts proposed in this paper (such as “AI-enabled interpretive models” and “language-culture-critical pathways”) as original contributions. This ensures the clarity of the origin of each concept.

Comments 3: You mention roughly 11 difference theories many of which with no references when proposed, that I could find.

Response 3: We carefully identified 11 difference theories or conceptual terms used throughout the paper. For each of them, we have either: Added proper citations to support established theories (e.g., Cognitive Load Theory – Sweller, 1994; Posthumanist Criticism – Hendrickx, 2023; Translation Theory – Baker, 1996; Hermeneutics – Gadamer, 2004) or explicitly stated that the concept is proposed by the authors (e.g., “AI Hermeneutics,” “AI-empowered Literary Teaching Model,” “language–culture–critique path”).This clarification ensures that each framework is either properly referenced or attributed as an original contribution of this study.

Comments 4: Also the points of interest "cultural understanding" and "critical interpretation" seem to appear out of nowhere. You can't place something in "" without a reference.

Response 4: In the revised draft, we clearly state that the “language comprehension-cultural understanding - critical interpretation” pathway is the conceptual framework proposed by the author. We also provide explanations for specialized terminology.

Comments 5: Teaching-related claims made without evidence. For example: “Traditional classroom teaching... lacks personalized learning...” — might be true, but no evidence is provided.

Response 5: Thank you for identifying this issue. We have revised such generalizations by either removing them or supporting them with recent educational research. Specifically, we now reference empirical studies (e.g., Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019; Kasneci et al., 2023) which highlight limitations of traditional instruction and the potential of AI in addressing individual learning needs.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After an extensive revision, the paper’s argumentation has become more balanced and convincing. The authors have addressed most of my concerns in the previous review. The methodology section also provides appropriate clarifications about the design of the analysis. Nevertheless, some problems still exist in the essay:

Some of the columns in Table 1 cannot be seen. TTR data are partially mistaken since some appear as negative values in Table 1.

The paper does not provide sufficient information about how symbolic expressions were identified to evaluate “Symbolic Expression Frequency.” Lines 261-262 only address this question superficially.

 

While the paper includes the general meaning of Syntactic Depth Level in lines 346-348, the numerical method of its calculation is still unclarified.

The “Abbreviations” section provides the meaning of ANT, even though this abbreviation appears only once in the text, right after the explicit expression. Thus, this abbreviation is as unnecessary in the text as in the “Abbreviations” section.

Author Response

Comments 1: Some of the columns in Table 1 cannot be seen. TTR data are partially mistaken since some appear as negative values in Table 1.

Response 1: Thank you for carefully reviewing and pointing out the issues with Table 1. In the revised manuscript, we have reformatted Table 1 to ensure that all columns are clearly visible and easy to read. Regarding the TTR values, we discovered a display error when exporting the statistical data into a Word table format. The negative values were not the original calculation results but were caused by formatting issues. Please refer to Table 1.

Comments 2: The paper does not provide sufficient information about how symbolic expressions were identified to evaluate “Symbolic Expression Frequency.”

Response 2: Thank you for your helpful comment. We have revised the manuscript to clarify how symbolic expressions were identified and quantified. In the updated Methods section (Research Instruments and Data Collection), we now explain that symbolic expressions were identified using a rule-based keyword matching approach. A predefined list of contextually relevant symbolic terms (e.g., madman, dog, etc.) was constructed based on close readings of the texts and manually reviewed for relevance and frequency. The frequency was normalized per 1,000 words to ensure comparability across texts of varying lengths. Please refer to the Research Instruments and Data Collection.

Comments 3: “While the paper includes the general meaning of Syntactic Depth Level in lines 346–348, the numerical method of its calculation is still unclarified.”

Response 3: In the revised version, we added a detailed explanation that syntactic depth is measured based on dependency trees, using the longest path from root to leaf as the depth of each sentence. The syntactic complexity of each translation is then represented by the average depth of the sentences. This explanation is now included in the updated “Data Analysis” section.

Comments 4: The “Abbreviations” section provides the meaning of ANT, even though this abbreviation appears only once in the text, right after the explicit expression. Thus, this abbreviation is as unnecessary in the text as in the “Abbreviations” section.

Response 4: Thank you for your helpful observation. We agree that the abbreviation “ANT” is used only once, and appears directly after its full expression in the text, so it does not need to be included in the ‘Abbreviations’ section. In the revised version, we have removed “ANT” from the list of abbreviations to avoid redundancy.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This outstanding article merits publication. The issue it tackles is innovative, original, and clearly defined. The text engages with the concept of enhancing the reading process through AI use; however, a question remains unresolved: how does this acceleration impact cognition in literature students? Here, empirical research comes as a critical vector.
In terms of improving this text, there are formal issues related to paragraph organization (140-144; 207-225; 237-245), punctuation (175-177), and table formatting (358-359) that can be addressed swiftly. Also regarding text organization, incorporating a roadmap or preview in the introduction section (24-111) would be beneficial.
The research question is presented in the methodology section (“How AI can reduce the burden of literature and language and assist in cross-cultural understanding”). This question should also be unequivocally included in the abstract (5-20) and introduction sections.  The use of the term "burden" in relation to "literature" and "language" in the research question raises some concerns. That "burden" should ideally make language and literature more engaging for students. There exists a clear tension that is effectively addressed in the discussion and conclusion sections, but there is room for more analysis. Utilizing technology to aid textual interpretation might work as a logical approach, and this study is well-structured and technically robust to progress in that direction.
Still, concerning the article’s conceptual framework and methodology, the text raised a few questions from this reviewer, which are remarked on in the attached annotated copy, and the authors are welcome to expand on these if they believe it will enhance their investigation. The question ‘Why?’ remains partially unresolved. Why should AI be utilized in literary studies? Would it be beneficial? The conclusion section offers some insights in this respect, but the authors may wish to reflect on whether the information provided is sufficient, particularly regarding cognitive load. Regarding the latter, and general readability, including some quotations illustrating the authors' arguments or those assessed within the literary review could assist in reinforcing the ideas presented in this article and aid general readers in bridging conceptual gaps.
Concerning methodology and results (from page 281 onward), the topic of prompts is introduced, suggesting that the authors' findings may have relevance in other contexts. Is it essential for readers to know which prompts were used? Ultimately, as the results presented contribute to the enhancement of existing knowledge, understanding the prompts employed should improve the reproducibility of the findings.
Similarly, elaborating on student feedback in the conclusion section would enrich this exceptional article.
Methodological questions and conceptual matters as mentioned above remain at the authors' discretion to contemplate and address.
Overall, this article answers the research question in a nuanced and insightful manner in the conclusion section and successfully contributes to the existing literature.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: In terms of improving this text, there are formal issues related to paragraph organization (140-144; 207-225; 237-245), punctuation (175-177), and table formatting (358-359) that can be addressed swiftly. Also regarding text organization, incorporating a roadmap or preview in the introduction section (24-111) would be beneficial. 

Response 1: Thank you for your detailed feedback on the format of the manuscript. We have revised the paragraph structure of the following sections to enhance logical coherence and readability. The punctuation issues have been corrected to ensure compliance with academic writing standards. The format of Table 1 (lines 398–399) has been adjusted to ensure that all columns are clearly visible and accurately present the data. Additionally, a roadmap has been added at the end of the introduction to clarify the article's structure and guide readers through the subsequent sections.

Comments 2: The research question is presented in the methodology section but should also appear clearly in the abstract and introduction. Moreover, the term "burden" in reference to literature and language raises concerns, as literature should ideally be engaging, not burdensome. While this tension is addressed later, more nuance is needed in earlier sections.

Response 2: We clearly stated the research question in the introduction to enhance the focus and coherence of the paper. Regarding the use of the term “burden,” we recognized the need for a more nuanced and constructive expression. Therefore, we replaced ‘burden’ with “complexity” and clearly pointed out that the challenges posed by literary language and cultural references are at the core of this study's pedagogical discussion.

Comments 3: Still, concerning the article’s conceptual framework and methodology, the text raised a few questions... The question ‘Why?’ remains partially unresolved. Why should AI be utilized in literary studies? Would it be beneficial? The conclusion section offers some insights... including some quotations illustrating the authors' arguments or those assessed within the literary review could assist in reinforcing the ideas.

Response 3: In response, we have expanded the introduction to more clearly explain the rationale for incorporating AI into literary studies, particularly in terms of reducing cognitive load and improving accessibility in cross-cultural contexts. We also cite examples from A Madman's Diary and The Chameleon to specify the linguistic and cultural complexities that AI tools can help address. These additions are intended to strengthen the conceptual underpinnings and reader comprehension of our study.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

I think a subheading may have fused with the body of the text, please check line 81 (Critical Interpretation" stage).

Author Response

Comments 1: I think a subheading may have fused with the body of the text, please check line 81 (Critical Interpretation" stage).

Response 1:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the sentence by removing the redundant phrase “critical reading stage” as it was unintentionally repetitive and caused formatting confusion. Please check line 87.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The theme of the article, the application of generative AI in education of literature in universities, is of important and practical significance in this age of rapidly growing AI technologies. Only one suggestion for the author: the title of the article, "the influence of the works of A. P. Chekhov and Lu Xun on the creation of educational programs in literature", is better to be changed into "Influence of short novels on the creation of educational programs in literature: taking A.P. Chekhov's "The Chameleon" and Lu Xun's "A Madman's Diary" as an example". 

Author Response

Comments 1: Only one suggestion for the author: the title of the article, "The influence of the works of A. P. Chekhov and Lu Xun on the creation of educational programs in literature", is better to be changed into "Influence of short novels on the creation of educational programs in literature: taking A.P. Chekhov's The Chameleon and Lu Xun's A Madman's Diary as an example".

Response 1: Thank you very much for this insightful suggestion. We agree that specifying the short stories analyzed in the study will enhance the clarity and focus of the article. Therefore, we have revised the title accordingly. Please review the title.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the work is needs to be significantly more robust for the authors to make any of the claims they present. There is no experimental design that I can find and the analysis is superficial and essentially editorial. As an example I see no clear result that support the below claim aside from the authors pumping text into a AI bot and of course the result will be less complex, I'm not seeing any independently verified measures that suggest comprehension by students has improved.  It's possible the authors can reconstruct the paper as a position article that allow for future work research, but I just don't see how any conclusions could be drawn from this interview based method.

"In this study, an AI-enabled model for teaching literature was constructed and then, its potential was verified it in relation to reducing the difficulty of language as well as improving the efficiency of comprehension."

Author Response

Comments 1: There is no experimental design that I can find and the analysis is superficial and essentially editorial. As an example I see no clear result that support the below claim aside from the authors pumping text into a AI bot and of course the result will be less complex, I'm not seeing any independently verified measures that suggest comprehension by students has improved. 

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting this key point. We agree that the original paper did not clearly distinguish between theoretical modeling and empirical validation. In the revised version, we clarified that this study is a theory-driven, data-driven model rather than an experimental intervention. In the Methodology, Discussion, and Implications section, we explicitly point out that the model has not been empirically tested and suggest that future teaching experiments involving pretest/posttest designs could address this shortcoming. Please review these three sections.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper concentrates on highly relevant topics, namely some potential uses and advantages of AI in teaching comparative literature. The study argues for the necessary reorientation of educational practices by using AI tools as active participators throughout the interpretative process of reading. The methodological considerations are instructive in this context. The general conclusion of the essay is also well-balanced and substantiated.

Yet, there are several structural problems and discrepancies in the text, which weaken the argumentation:

While the Introduction says that the “study explores the value of Chekhov's and Lu Xun's works in the design of current literature education programs,” the argumentation uses Chekhov's and Lu Xun's works only as examples to elaborate on its principal research questions about the possibilities of AI tools in literature education programs. In this respect, even the main title is misleading and mistakenly highlights what is at risk in the argumentation.

While at some points, the paper seems to focus on the integrability of AI translations (e.g., “This study explores the potential and limitations of AI translations in streamlining literary understanding and supporting intercultural education”), at other points, it intends to cover the role of AI tools in a much broader sense (i.e., on the levels of „text processing, semantic analysis, interactive dialogue, and writing support”).

In the literature review section of the paper, the second paragraph is devoted to Chekhov and Lu Xun, but its position in the section is odd, and its scope is peculiarly limited. This paragraph seems unreasonably included; if necessary, it should be significantly extended and replaced at the end of the literature review.

The overview of previous research on “the pathway barriers to students' construction of meaning in texts” is partial since the essay does not appropriately consider research in second language acquisition (or, more specifically, ESL).

While TTR is an abbreviation for type/token ratio, the paper uses two different names inconsequently. Sometimes, the essay refers to it as a type-example ratio, but at other points, it mentions TTR as a type-word instance ratio.

While the essay clearly explains the Flesch Reading Ease formula, ASL, and TTR, it does not properly specify the applied methods to evaluate Symbolic Expression Frequency, Complex Word Ratio, and Syntactic Depth Level, categories that also appear in Table 1. (There is a formatting problem in the pdf file: some columns in Table 1 are cut off.) Interestingly, while the meaning of TTR is clarified, Table 1 does not contain it.

The paper does not provide sufficient details about the literature classes that are the focus of the empirical research presented here. According to the intention that “Teachers should guide students to compare the original text and multiple translations” (lines 420-421), the reader might suppose that students speak the original languages of the taught works at a certain level. In this respect, the use of English translations (cf. line 377) is unreasonable. Moreover, it is unclear and unexplained why students need a simplified translation to decrease the cognitive load if a literary translation in their native language is available.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are typos in the text (e.g., lowercase letters after a period), and some sentences are grammatically inconsistent (e.g., because of redundancies and repetitions, as in lines 490-491).

Author Response

Comments 1: The paragraph on Chekhov and Lu Xun appears in an odd position and feels underdeveloped. If necessary, it should be extended and placed at the end of the literature review. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have moved the paragraphs on Chekhov and Lu Xun to the end of the literature review and expanded them considerably. The revised section discusses their pedagogical relevance, textual complexity, and challenges in cross-cultural teaching. The section also positions them as representative of difficult texts that justify the application of AI-assisted instructional interventions. Please check lines 213-232.

Comments 2: The essay does not properly specify the methods for evaluating symbolic frequency, complex word ratio, and syntactic depth. Also, TTR is explained but not included in Table 1.

Response 2: We have added clear definitions of token expression frequencies, compound word ratios, and syntactic depth, including how to calculate each using NLP tools and manual inspection. TTR (Type-Token Ratio) has been added to Table 1 and is now fully integrated into the results section with a clear explanation of comparative interpretation and pedagogical relevance. Please check lines 359-365 and table 1.

Comments 3: It is unclear why students need simplified translation if there are literary translations in their native language.

Response 3: We have explained in the revised draft (Section 4.3) that in multilingual educational settings, especially in international classrooms and Sino-foreign cooperative programs, students are often required to read English translations of literary works even when native language versions are available. Given the syntactic and stylistic complexity of literary English translations, students may struggle in the initial stages of reading. Therefore, we introduced AI-generated simplified versions as scaffolding tools to ease the cognitive load in the pre-reading and structural analysis phases. These versions are not intended to replace authoritative translations, but to support tiered reading strategies and differentiated instruction. Please check lines 455-468.

Comments 4: There are typos in the text (e.g., lowercase letters after a period), and some sentences are grammatically inconsistent (e.g., because of redundancies and repetitions, as in lines 490–491).

Response 4: We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript for typographical errors, particularly the capitalization error after the period. Sentence structure has been revised to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity. In addition, we have conducted a whole-language check to enhance consistency of academic tone, eliminate repetition, and correct formatting errors. We believe that the current version is more polished and stylistically more suitable for publication. Please kindly review the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx