Physical Literacy and Teacher Training: Pilot Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work represents a fine objective, and with closer attention to writing quality, grammar, and English language quality, it will contribute to the wider knowledge of the field. Please understand my comments are not intended to be too critical of your work and the value of this study – while I believe this manuscript can be greatly improved, I also believe you are at the start of a very well-written and valuable contribution.

In that abstract alone there appear to be between 5-10 errors relating to punctuation, missing words, and English language quality. Rather than make specific mention to each error, I highly recommend allowing a proficient English language writer review and revise the work before resubmitting. The author(s) have clearly made a very good effort at writing clarity and effectiveness.

Several sentences, although grammatically sound, are very lengthy, thus, difficult to follow – I recommend the author(s) restructure sentences to either be within a reasonable word count for standard sentences [roughly 40 words or fewer], or properly punctuate these ‘clunky’ sentences as to better clarify messaging.

To that end, my comments will only pertain to ‘big picture’ observations/suggestions with method and discussion.

In your introduction, you allude to a phenomenon in Occupational Socialization Theory (OST) known as acculturation. This has been widely studied and published. I recommend including the foundational definitions of acculturation and OST with credit to the following authors and their work:

Lawson, H. A. (1983). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education (part 1). Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2(3), 3-16.

Templin, T. J. (1979). Occupational socialization and the physical education student teacher. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 50, 482-493.

Richards, K. A. R, Pennington, C. G., & Sinelnikov, O. (2019). Teacher Socialization in Physical Education: A Scoping Review of Literature. Kinesiology Review.  8(2), 86-99. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0003.

 

A paper’s purpose statement is so crucial. The author(s) purpose statement is as follows:

“This study aims to discover the thinking of future physical education teachers, focusing its attention on the early educational stage, in which teachers’ ways of thinking are forged and the foundations of their identity as teachers laid.”

Aside from it being a fairly ‘clunky sentence for a purpose statement, my main issue is with the very first part: “aims to discover the thinking of future physical education teachers”. I don’t believe this is possible to achieve. Thinking is monetary and always in the present. Even reflection and recall are flawed because of the influence of hindsight. I think a more appropriate aim in-line with the data your study captured is, “This study aims to EXPLORE the thought PROCESSES of future physical education teachers, focusing its attention on the early educational stage, in which teachers’ THOUGHT PROCESSES are forged and the foundations of their identity as teachers laid.”

Again, your purpose statement is speaking directly on two fundamental stages of occupational socialization theory, acculturation and professional socialization. I highly encourage you to refer to this concept in your introduction and/or following your purpose statement. See Richards, K. A. R, Pennington, C. G., & Sinelnikov, O. (2019). Teacher Socialization in Physical Education: A Scoping Review of Literature. Kinesiology Review.  8(2), 86-99. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0003.

I do not understand the value in participants weight/height. In a revision, please explain the purpose of including this data.

Among those included in the expert discussion, could you be a little more specific regarding who was included? What were their titles and ranks/professional responsibilities? How many were there? What made them “experts”?

I take issue with the suggestion that “all of the possible responses to this question was undertaken…”. Surly, a participant could provide a response outside these 13 choices. I believe this item is one which should have been open-ended or participants should have been given an “other/write-in” option.

I think one of the most interesting results of your study was the significant differences between the two institutions. I think this should be explored in a future study where by the teacher preparation programs are compared to determine their role in developing teacher identities and conceptions of physical literacy in particular and physical education in general.

Do the authors believe the difference in thinking from year 1 to year 4 represents growth? Maturity? What role does age/experience maturation play and what role does professional socialization play? This question may be impossible to answer, but I would like to see it presented and explored in the discussion.

The further I read of the manuscript, the more confident I became in the author(s) writing ability and English language. It seems the majority of the ‘writing style’ issue I observed were in the abstract and at the beginning of the manuscript.

It appears your references are a good combination of foundational work paired with fairly recent studies. I believe once you update your references to include some of the ‘gold standard’ work in OST/acculturation, these will be very adequate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- The paper work is good, short and informative.
- In the construction of instrumental research (when forming items) through the consultation of experts, the Delphi method was used (so it would be good to indicate that in the text).
It should also be clarified whether the instrument was analyzed / constructed by mutually known or anonymous individuals (experts).
- "As a result of this double process" Please clarify, does this statement refer to two rounds of analysis?
- Please clarify, what is the importance of height-weight data of the participants if these data were not taken in further processing?
- Given that the reliability of the instrument is stated, and as the range is also stated, it would be useful to indicate which subscales of the instrument it refers to.
- Why in the table "significant differences" is marked with capitol "P", while in the text small "p" is used)?
- Please be aware of the expression "studies" having two meanings, one means different courses or fields of learning on college or university, and other as research studies.
- Also, a term "pupil" is usually referred to child attending primary or secondary school, and "student" attending a college or university..Please, check your using pattern in the paper.

Author Response

 

Point 1: The paper work is good, short and informative.

 

Response 1: We thank you very much for your comments and your time improving the study. Taking into account your considerations, we hope the quality of the study will be satisfactory.

 

Point 2: In the construction of instrumental research (when forming items) through the consultation of experts, the Delphi method was used (so it would be good to indicate that in the text).

It should also be clarified whether the instrument was analyzed / constructed by mutually known or anonymous individuals (experts).

 

Response 2: Following your suggestion, we included in the text (line 110) the Delphi method mention. A broader characterisation of the expert group has also been included (line 113-118).

 

Point 3: As a result of this double process" Please clarify, does this statement refer to two rounds of analysis?

 

Response 3: With “double process” we wanted to refer to the process. The experts made a draft with the Delphi method, and then they used the Delphi method again to draw up the final questionnaire. 

 

Point 4: Please clarify, what is the importance of height-weight data of the participants if these data were not taken in further processing?

 

Response 4: The study presented to the Journal is a Pilot Study framed in a larger project. This project aims to analyse all of the possible aspects that influence teacher training. Among these aspects are past experiences with physical education, sports and physical activity. We included weight/height because our aim was to analyse anthropometric variables such as body mass index.

 

Point 5: Given that the reliability of the instrument is stated, and as the range is also stated, it would be useful to indicate which subscales of the instrument it refers to.

 

Response 5: Following your indications, we have specified the scores of all the parts of the questionnaire in lines 126-128.

 

Point 6: Why in the table "significant differences" is marked with capitol "P", while in the text small "p" is used)?

 

Response 6: The capital “P” in the tables has been replaced by a small “p” as it was the result of a format error.

 

Point 7: Please be aware of the expression "studies" having two meanings, one means different courses or fields of learning on college or university, and other as research studies.

 

Response 7: We have checked the text and we haven’t found the mistake. If you could point out where the error is, we will change it.

 

Point 8: Also, a term "pupil" is usually referred to child attending primary or secondary school, and "student" attending a college or university. Please, check your using pattern in the paper.

 

Response 8: We have checked the text again, and following your advice we have replaced the term “pupil” for “student” when it refers to a college or university students. We have kept the term “pupil” when it refers to a primary or secondary students.