Exploring the impact of classroom climate on music aesthetic literacy in nonmusic majors

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333470 October 7, 2025 9 / 13 The overall model was statistically significant (F(2,302) = 116.635, p = 0.00), with an R-squared value of 0.436. This indicates that 43.6% of the variance in MAL is explained by the combined effects of PE and TSI. The Durbin–Watson value of 2.085 indicates no significant autocorrelation in the residuals, thereby suggesting the model’s reliability. These results directly address the first research question by confirming that both the PE and TSI influence MAL signifi- cantly among nonmusic-major students. Influence of the physical environment and teacher–student interactions on music aesthetic literacy dimensions To examine the specific effects of PE and TSI on different dimensions of MAL, additional linear regression analyses were performed with Attitude, Habit, Knowledge, and PAS as the dependent variables. The results, as displayed in Table 7, reveal that both PE and TSI have significant impacts across all dimensions of MAL, with TSI consistently having a stron- ger influence. The regression analysis shows that TSI significantly predicts all dimensions of MAL, with the strongest effect observed on Habit (B = 0.485, p < 0.05) and PAS (B = 0.453, p < 0.05). PE also has significant effects on Attitude, Habit, and Knowl- edge, though its influence on PAS is not statistically significant (B = 0.079, p > 0.05). These results provide further insights into the second research question, indicating that TSI plays a critical role in

enhancing the various facets of MAL, particularly in fostering habits and performance skills. At the same time, the PE primarily influences students’ attitudes and knowledge acquisition. Table 6. Results of the Linear Regression Analysis (N = 305). Nonstandardized Coefficients Standardization Coefficient t p Collinearity Diagnostics B Standard Error Beta VIF Tolerance Constant 1.352 0.148 – 9.151 0.00* – – PE 0.189 0.039 0.233 4.816 0.00* 1.251 0.799 TSI 0.407 0.038 0.522 10.798 0.00* 1.251 0.799 R 2 0.436 Adjust R 2 0.432 F F (2,302) = 116.635,p = 0.00 D-W value 2.085 Note. * p < .05, PE = Physical Environment, TSI = Teacher–Student Interaction, VIF = Variance Inflation Factor. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333470.t006 Table 7. Results of the Linear Regression Analysis 2 (N = 305). DV IV Attitude Habit Knowledge PAS Constant 1.521, t(303) = 6.67* 1.127, t(303) = 5.41* 1.239, t(303) = 5.58* 1.522, t(303) = 6.83* PE 0.212, t(303) = 3.50* 0.184, t(303) = 3.33* 0.280, t(303) = 4.75* 0.079, t(303) = 1.34 TSI 0.349, t(303) = 5.99* 0.485, t(303) = 9.13* 0.342, t(303) = 6.03* 0.453, t(303) = 7.97* R2 0.21 0.33 0.26 0.23 Adjust R2 0.21 0.33 0.25 0.23 F 41.89 76.06 52.94 46.85 D-W value 2.10 2.07 2.06 1.97 Note. * p < .05, DV = Dependent Variable, IV = Independent Variable, PE = Physical Environment, TSI = Teacher–Student Interaction, PAS = Performance and Appreciation Skills. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333470.t007