Beliefs and Previous Concepts about Physical Education in Primary Education Undergraduate Students

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing this manuscript. Your insightful comments and observations have significantly enhanced our work. Please find below our detailed responses to your feedback, with corresponding corrections highlighted in red within the revised files. Track changes have been implemented to facilitate your review of the modifications.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

Introduction:

Though the reader is presented with good facts and examples, the introduction was choppy and did not flow well; rather, in many parts, it read more like a presentation of facts rather than a compelling argument/narrative. Please connect these together to synthesize and form an introduction that informs the reader where the rest of the paper is going.

Response 1:

We have made significant revisions and enhancements to the introduction section, highlighted in red in the document. Key updates include detailed descriptions of the course structure and the contents we address (lines 38-43). We have also expanded on the concept of teachers' beliefs and their relationship with initial teacher training (lines 59-67 and 66-78).

In terms of methodology, we have incorporated references and elaborated on the narrative inquiry approach (lines 91-99), addressing previous insufficiencies. Additionally, we have emphasized the value of our mixed-method approach, highlighting its substantial contribution to our research.

Overall, we have strived to enhance the fluidity and eloquence of the text to better capture the reader's attention.

Comments 2:

Methodology:
I very much appreciated Figure 1. This visual was helpful. In the qualitative research sub-section, you briefly mention "narrative method," and I looked to the chart to see that you outlined your methods as narrative inquiry. No one was cited, and the methods were not elaborated on, despite robust research and scholarly work having been done in the field that could ground your methodological approach. Furthermore, the criterion for recruiting participants would be helpful. Were these your students? Did this work result from their class? What it attached to a grade? This would be helpful to clarify.  Additionally, how was the analysis done? What was criteria to determine preservice teachers had a positive or negative experience? What were you looking for and how were you coding this data? This section needs attention to strengthen the validity of the research.

Response 2:

We have agreed to revise and deepen the discussion on the narrative method (lines 91-99).  Additionally, we have provided a detailed description of participant selection (lines 201-210) and the analysis of the information gathered (lines 223-235), ensuring the validation of the research.

Comments 3:

Results:

Similarly, as mentioned above, more attention is needed with the qualitative data findings. It is not enough to just list some of the phrases; how does this connect, and what emerged from this? What did you discover? More elaboration is needed if this qualitative section is going to be included

Response 2:

We have revised and integrated the quantitative and qualitative results (lines 239-244), presenting quotes related to the same topics. We specify how the qualitative quotes either confirm, disconfirm, or complement the quantitative findings, serving as a triangulation of the results. Examples of these integrations can be found on lines 261-263, 276-278, and 350-354.

Comments 4:

Discussion:

I like how this section clearly crafted the argument for not just how the findings aligned with other studies, but how the results of taking this class seemed to result in openness, and how a class that incorporated critical examination of beliefs potentially contributed to helping preservice teachers reconsider deep-seeded beliefs about physical education. This is made into a compelling argument for advocating for courses to challenge and confront pre-service teachers' beliefs about education in educator preparation programs, and this is an important contribution to the field.

Response 2:

We have underlined the value of addressing beliefs in initial teacher training in the conclusion section. Additionally, we have added two final paragraphs discussing the contributions to the Physical Education Didactics subject. (lines 506-532).

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Well written overall; there were several subject-verb agreement issues, as well as grammatical (mostly comma and apostrophe) errors. Please check these and proofread throughout.

Response 1: A native speaker made a revision and improve our text.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing this manuscript. Your insightful comments and observations have significantly enhanced our work.

Please find below our detailed responses to your feedback, with corresponding corrections highlighted in red within the revised files. Track changes have been implemented to facilitate your review of the modifications.

Comments 1.

The introduction lacks throughout the literature review, making this study not situated in the existing literature. Therefore, the introduction could benefit from a more extensive literature review to provide a deeper theoretical foundation for the study. Including key studies on beliefs in teacher education and Physical Education could enhance the context and theoretical framework. 

Response 1:

We have made significant revisions and enhancements to the introduction section, expanding the literature review and providing a deeper theoretical foundation. Ten additional references have been incorporated. We elaborated on teachers' beliefs and their relationship with initial teacher training (lines 59-66 and 66-78). Additionally, we expanded the theoretical framework of narrative inquiry (lines 91-99), and emphasized the value of the mixed-method approach (lines 118-122). These revisions aim to provide a more comprehensive context and underscore the importance of integrating diverse methodological perspectives in our study.

Comments 2.

While the introduction briefly mentions the course on "Didactics of Physical Education," more background information on the course content, structure, and objectives could help readers better understand the study context. 

Response 2:

We have expanded the introduction to include more detailed information about the course content, structure, and objectives (lines 38-43). Additionally, we have provided comments on the participant sample and participation (lines 200-204).

Comments 3.

The introduction does not explicitly identify the research gap or the novelty of the study within the existing literature. Clearly stating how this study contributes to the field would strengthen the introduction.

Response 3:

We have highlighted the mixed-method study as the main contribution, as stated in lines 118-122.

Comments 4.

 The mixed approach is the strength of this study. However, section 2 does not elaborate on the sampling strategy or participation selection criteria for this study. Details on how participants were recruited and selected are critical for this study. 

Response 4:

We elaborated on the selection and recruitment of participants in lines 201-204.

Comments 5.

More detailed explanation of how the data were analyzed and integrated is necessary. 

Response 5:

About information analysis, we explicitly detail the procedures and triangulation in lines 220-243.

Comments 6. 

While the section mentions qualitative analysis of students' narratives, the depth of qualitative findings presented is relatively limited compared to the quantitative results. Providing more detailed qualitative insights could enrich the interpretation of the quantitative findings.

Response 6:

We made and effort for integrating the quantitative and qualitative results for a more robust interpretation, as in lines (260-262), (276-278), (315-317), (350-355).

Comments 7.

The discussion lacks in-depth discussion about the theoretical contribution to the existing literature. Moreover, the future research directions were not discussed. This study should address suggestions for further research or practical applications of the study findings that would enhance the discussion's relevance and impact.

Response 7:

We added to the conclusions the significant contribution of this study. It´s related with the challenging and confronting pre-service techers´ beliefs about education in the initial teacher education programs. Moreover, the use of concurrent mixed study adds a new and distintive dimension to the existing literature (lines 477-482). This approach not only enriches our understanding but also provides valuable insights that can inform future educational practices and research.