Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This article approaches a very important subject. It fills a large gap in the literature. Some very significant changes must be made before this can be considered for publication.

 

1. Your abstract reads in current and future tense. Since you already did your dissertation you must change the entire paper to past tense. As of now it is hard to read due to tense issues.
2. 1 first sentence you say traits two times. I actually have no idea what that sentence means. What is ‘trait emotional intelligence’? Can you use more common words?
3. 1 line 42 the first sentence is not a complete sentence.
4. 4 lines 186-194 after you talks about the aims of the study you delve into what should be in the discussion. Change the word aims and make it clear that it is the purpose of the study. Move the paragraph after the purpose (now aims) to the discussion as you delve into a discussion before you even introduce the methods.
5. 5 line 235 the first sentence is not a complete sentence. Please re-write to ensure the meaning is conveyed.
6. Trustworthiness is required in qualitative studies to ensure the data is accurate. There are many ways to establish Trustworthiness. Please add a section on Trustworthiness or this study is just speculating on validity of the data. There are many ways to establish this and you must share what you did in your process.
7. Your limitations on pg. 20 need a heading.
8. You need a Future Research heading

Global feedback-

The discussion is a long list of seemingly unrelated paragraphs. Please add dome headings

How did the teacher determine the curriculum? You talk about tasks and skills, but how did you choose those skills? In some countries children with disabilities learn the same units their peers learn and their curriculum follows the same units. Please explain how you came up with basketball for example.

In addition, your findings are very compelling. It would be good to ensure that these instructional approaches are taught in professional preparation programs for future teachers. Please add a section on Implications.

Author Response

Hello, first, we would like to thank you for your objective review, which has helped to improve the quality of our research. Alongside our comments and clarifications, we attach the finalised manuscript, which incorporates improvements addressing all three reviewers’ comments and recommendations.

Below, we explain how we responded to each of your comments:

1. Your abstract reads in current and future tense. Since you already did your dissertation you must change the entire paper to past tense. As of now it is hard to read due to tense issues.

The abstract was rewritten in the past tense.

2. first sentence you say traits two times. I actually have no idea what that sentence means. What is ‘trait emotional intelligence’? Can you use more common words?

This research is grounded in the trait emotional intelligence theory. There are several emotional intelligence theories that describes it`s structure. Hence this research is based on the trait emotional intelligence theory, all terminology regarding this theory is used (for example trait emotional intelligence, traits, etc.).

3. line 42 the first sentence is not a complete sentence.

This sentence was deleted and for clarity the later paragraph was connected with the previous.

4. lines 186-194 after you talks about the aims of the study you delve into what should be in the discussion. Change the word aims and make it clear that it is the purpose of the study. Move the paragraph after the purpose (now aims) to the discussion as you delve into a discussion before you even introduce the methods.

The mentioned “aims” is replaced with “purpose of the study”. The mentioned paragraph was moved to the discussion section and replaced the previous first paragraph.

5. line 235 the first sentence is not a complete sentence. Please re-write to ensure the meaning is conveyed.

The mentioned sentence was rewritten as follows: A section from the researcher’s self-reflexivity is provided to both support the importance of the teacher-researcher role during this research and the research context as well: Also the later paragraph`s text was rewritten in cursive.

6. Trustworthiness is required in qualitative studies to ensure the data is accurate. There are many ways to establish Trustworthiness. Please add a section on Trustworthiness or this study is just speculating on validity of the data. There are many ways to establish this and you must share what you did in your process.

The trustworthiness section was added at the end of the 2^nd section. As for the trustworthiness of our results we substantiate it through four principle criteria: 1) credibility; 2) dependability; 3) confirmability; 4) transferability. These criteria have guided qualitative studies over recent decades. They unite the concepts of validity and reliability, and together characterise the research as “trustworthy” (Gibbs, 2018; Nassaji, 2020).

Credibility was achieved through the researcher’s perspective: the researcher had worked for several years as a teacher within the research setting. This enabled an in-depth familiarity with the sample, the context and the specific nature of the work, and supported a nuanced understanding of the phenomenon analysed.

Dependability is achieved through the appropriateness of the processes of data collection and analysis. The chosen methodology, and the theoretical and philosophical stances, fit the phenomenon under analysis, the research context and the aims. A micro-ethnographic approach is well suited to analysing such processes: it enables repeated review of the entire course of events and the development of targeted interpretations. Following a social constructionist approach, the study explores how traits of emotional intelligence are developed during social interactions. It should also be noted that the phenomenon under analysis is broken down into smaller structural elements that are grounded in internationally recognized theory.

Confirmability was achieved through descriptive accounts of the activities conducted in physical education (PE) lessons. The lesson activities implemented align with the content and aims of the “Lithuanian Primary Education Curriculum”, and thus are clearly regulated and approved. The chosen approach allows the researcher to delve into the data and analyze them from several vantage points; nevertheless, the final interpretation of the observed phenomenon is stated very clearly, distinguishing both the content of the social interaction in which it is manifested and the reasons for selecting that interaction, the ac-tion taking place within it, the forms of communication used, and so forth.

Transferability was achieved through the lens of theoretical premises for developing emotional intelligence and through selected empirical results. Drawing on the scholarly literature, theoretical premises were articulated that enable the development of emotional intelligence in PE lessons. It was also shown that the structure of emotional intelligence is the same for pupils with special educational needs (SEN) and for those without SEN. On the basis of these premises and the success of the empirical data, the same activities and similar social interactions can be replicated in other contexts. It is likewise recognized that emotional intelligence is developed during physical-activity-based tasks.

7. Your limitations on pg. 20 need a heading.

Heading was added.

8. You need a Future Research heading

Heading was added.

 

Global feedback-

The discussion is a long list of seemingly unrelated paragraphs. Please add some headings.

6 additional headings were added.

How did the teacher determine the curriculum? You talk about tasks and skills, but how did you choose those skills? In some countries children with disabilities learn the same units their peers learn and their curriculum follows the same units. Please explain how you came up with basketball for example.

All tasks were prepared in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, the Law on Education, and the curricula in force at the time. The curricula set out in detail the content specifying the skills and competences that all pupils in Lithuania are expected to acquire during PE lessons. At the school where the study was conducted, the education plan for the academic year is approved before the start of the year. This means the school administration reviews each teacher’s planned activities, their compliance with the applicable legislation, the Law on Education and the curriculum, and, where appropriate, approves these activities. The activities were also designed with reference to pupils’ health indicators. Pupils with health conditions were assigned a personalised workload where casual participation with the rest of the class was not possible.

In addition, your findings are very compelling. It would be good to ensure that these instructional approaches are taught in professional preparation programs for future teachers. Please add a section on Implications.

Having evaluated the study’s results and conclusions—particularly the characteristics of teacher–pupil communication and their added significance—the findings may be valuable both for preparing novice specialists and for the continuing professional development of experienced teachers. The methods and strategies revealed in the study do not require additional equipment or specialized programs; rather, they generate new theoretical knowledge and practical skills regarding how the content of social interactions can usefully support the development of pupils’ emotional-intelligence traits. It is also worth noting that physical education (PE) lessons are compulsory for almost all pupils; accordingly, the teacher’s practical ability to cultivate these traits concurrently becomes especially valuable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript addresses a subject of undeniable relevance in the field of Physical Education and educational inclusion, as it focuses on the analysis of processes related to self-confidence and intrinsic motivation in students with special educational needs. The study offers a pertinent and contemporary approach, with the potential to contribute to the understanding of phenomena that have been scarcely explored in this field.

However, throughout the text certain aspects are identified that could be improved, particularly regarding the clarity in the definition of key concepts, the organization of the methodological section, the precision in the description of participants and instruments, and the need for a stronger comparison of results with previous research. Such improvements would strengthen the scientific rigor of the work and enhance its contribution to the specialized literature.

In this regard, the observations included in the present review have been formulated with a constructive intent, aiming to help the authors improve their manuscript and maximize its academic impact:

The introduction presents a broad and in-depth analysis of the research topic, providing a contextual framework that helps situate the object of study. However, in some passages the information presented becomes excessively repetitive, which may affect the clarity and conciseness of the text.

It is recommended that the authors clearly and consistently define the key concepts that form the core of the research (e.g., self-confidence, self-concept, intrinsic motivation) at the very beginning of the introduction. Providing these definitions early on would contribute to better reader comprehension and allow for precise identification of the variables under analysis.

Furthermore, since the objective of the study is to analyze the factors associated with the development of self-confidence and intrinsic motivation in students with special educational needs (SEN) in the field of Physical Education, it would be appropriate for the introduction to incorporate a more specific review of previous studies in this area. In particular, it would be useful to include research that addresses the situation of students with SEN in Physical Education, considering the specific characteristics of this subject. Physical Education, due to its particular features (motor skills exposure, social interaction, group dynamics, high-visibility spaces, etc.), can both amplify explicit manifestations of certain behaviors and foster experiences of discrimination stemming from motor differences or other individual conditions. Including this perspective would significantly enrich the theoretical framework and provide a stronger justification for the relevance of the study.

The authors indicate that the study analyzes the processes of developing self-confidence and intrinsic motivation; however, it is not sufficiently clear which variables or aspects were considered as explanatory factors or indicators of these processes. It is essential to specify more precisely which observable indicators were used in the video recordings, as well as which attitudes, behaviors, or concrete traits were taken as references to identify manifestations of self-confidence and intrinsic motivation in students. Such clarification would strengthen the validity of the analysis and facilitate the replicability of the study.

It is also recommended to adjust the methodological section to the structures commonly used in empirical research papers. In particular, it would be advisable to organize it into clearly differentiated subsections: methodological design, participants, instruments, data collection procedures, data analysis, and ethical considerations. This structure would not only provide greater order and coherence but would also allow readers to more systematically understand how the study was conducted and which methodological criteria were applied.

Since the authors have chosen microethnography as the data collection procedure, it is clear that the study focuses on a particular reality. However, it would be relevant to state more explicitly that the selected sample corresponds to convenience sampling, mainly determined by accessibility, as it involves the students of the teacher-researcher. This aspect should be clearly indicated, as it conditions both the delimitation of the sample and the interpretation of the findings.

It is also necessary to explain more explicitly the teacher’s involvement in the research. The fact that the teacher is both researcher and active subject within the study context may introduce convenience biases that affect the objectivity of the results. In particular, if the teacher analyzes their own practice, there is a risk that interpretations may be influenced by subjective perceptions or personal interests.

To address this limitation, it is suggested that the authors specify which mechanisms were implemented to ensure the reliability and objectivity of the data interpretation. Although the participation of another researcher in the observation and analysis is mentioned, it would be important to clarify to what extent this person’s involvement in the practice and school context provides an external perspective or, conversely, reproduces the same bias of involvement. Clearly presenting these strategies would strengthen the credibility of the study and its methodological transparency. Where applicable, this should be presented as a limitation of the study.

In the section on participants, the authors tend to group all students with SEN into a single category. This homogenization may be problematic from an inclusive perspective, as it assumes that students with SEN form a homogeneous group, disregarding the diversity within it. Moreover, there is a risk of presuming that the condition of SEN generally entails greater difficulties in aspects such as self-confidence or motivation in Physical Education. Such an interpretation may lead to overgeneralizations and to attributing these difficulties exclusively to the SEN condition, without considering other individual or contextual factors.

It is important to note that students without an SEN diagnosis may also exhibit low motivation or self-esteem in Physical Education for various reasons (lack of interest in the subject, low physical fitness, negative past experiences, among others). Therefore, it would be appropriate for the authors to clarify how this dimension was considered in the analysis and how interpretive biases that overemphasize the influence of SEN were avoided.

Additionally, within the group of students with SEN, it is important to differentiate the characteristics of each condition. The authors categorized all identified SEN under the same group. However, in some cases, the condition does not directly affect motor skills or social interaction, which allows students to achieve adequate levels of motivation and academic success in Physical Education. In this sense, it is recommended that the authors provide more detail on the characteristics of the participants, avoiding generalizations that could limit the interpretation of results and the inclusive potential of the study.

Regarding the data collection and analysis instrument, it would be advisable for the authors to specify more precisely how the template used for video analysis was developed (if one was used). Although it seems that an inductive coding process was employed, it is necessary to clarify the theoretical bases or conceptual criteria on which this process was grounded, as this adds greater solidity and scientific rigor to the research.

It is also important to clarify how the video analysis was carried out: whether each researcher independently observed the recordings following the same coding criteria, or whether another procedure was used to ensure inter-rater validity and reliability. Detailing these methodological aspects would strengthen the transparency of the study and support the consistency of the results.

The results section presents information extensively and descriptively, but it falls short of exhaustively addressing the study’s objectives. It is recommended that the authors synthesize the findings and organize them more clearly in relation to the research objectives, so that each result explicitly connects to them. In addition, it would be appropriate to include significant and representative examples that illustrate the most relevant findings, while avoiding the accumulation of unfocused descriptions that obscure the study’s central contribution.

As for the discussion, it lacks clear differentiation from the results section. The discussion does not provide sufficient contrast with previous studies, nor does it demonstrate how the findings contribute to advancing knowledge in the field. To strengthen this section, it is suggested that the authors incorporate a comparative analysis with prior research in the area, showing similarities, discrepancies, and original contributions of the study. This integration would not only clarify the distinction between results and their interpretation but also highlight the study’s relevance and significance in the existing scientific literature.

Author Response

Hello, first, we would like to thank you for your objective review, which has helped to improve the quality of our research. Alongside our comments and clarifications, we attach the finalised manuscript, which incorporates improvements addressing all three reviewers’ comments and recommendations.

Below, we explain how we responded to each of your comments:

1. The manuscript addresses a subject of undeniable relevance in the field of Physical Education and educational inclusion, as it focuses on the analysis of processes related to self-confidence and intrinsic motivation in students with special educational needs. The study offers a pertinent and contemporary approach, with the potential to contribute to the understanding of phenomena that have been scarcely explored in this field.

Thank you for this acknowledgment.

2. However, throughout the text certain aspects are identified that could be improved, particularly regarding the clarity in the definition of key concepts, the organization of the methodological section, the precision in the description of participants and instruments, and the need for a stronger comparison of results with previous research. Such improvements would strengthen the scientific rigor of the work and enhance its contribution to the specialized literature.

We considered all your comments; in some cases we added further detail, and in others we supplied clarifications without changing the manuscript text.

3. In this regard, the observations included in the present review have been formulated with a constructive intent, aiming to help the authors improve their manuscript and maximize its academic impact:

Thank you for this acknowledgment.

4. The introduction presents a broad and in-depth analysis of the research topic, providing a contextual framework that helps situate the object of study. However, in some passages the information presented becomes excessively repetitive, which may affect the clarity and conciseness of the text.

We structured the text by dividing some paragraphs and bold text.

5. It is recommended that the authors clearly and consistently define the key concepts that form the core of the research (e.g., self-confidence, self-concept, intrinsic motivation) at the very beginning of the introduction. Providing these definitions early on would contribute to better reader comprehension and allow for precise identification of the variables under analysis.

We added this clarification in lines 39-44: In this study, drawing on trait emotional-intelligence theory, self-confidence is conceptualized as an individual’s positive self-assessment and belief in their ability to over-come challenges and achieve success (Bhat and Arumugam, 2021; Manikandan, 2015), while intrinsic motivation is understood as an individual’s interest in, engagement with, and satisfaction derived from an activity (Ryan and Deci, 2020; Bandhu et al., 2024). A more detailed explication of these concepts is provided below.

6. Furthermore, since the objective of the study is to analyze the factors associated with the development of self-confidence and intrinsic motivation in students with special educational needs (SEN) in the field of Physical Education, it would be appropriate for the introduction to incorporate a more specific review of previous studies in this area. In particular, it would be useful to include research that addresses the situation of students with SEN in Physical Education, considering the specific characteristics of this subject. Physical Education, due to its particular features (motor skills exposure, social interaction, group dynamics, high-visibility spaces, etc.), can both amplify explicit manifestations of certain behaviors and foster experiences of discrimination stemming from motor differences or other individual conditions. Including this perspective would significantly enrich the theoretical framework and provide a stronger justification for the relevance of the study.

In lines 185-209, a paragraph entitled “Characteristics of the Physical Abilities of Pupils with Special Educational Needs and the Practical Significance of Physical Education” has been inserted. It reviews findings from several studies, outlining the specific features of the physical abilities of pupils with SEN, the consequences of delayed physical development for socio-emotional development, and the practical significance of PE, linking these to the current relevance of fostering pupils’ self-confidence and motivation.

7. The authors indicate that the study analyzes the processes of developing self-confidence and intrinsic motivation; however, it is not sufficiently clear which variables or aspects were considered as explanatory factors or indicators of these processes. It is essential to specify more precisely which observable indicators were used in the video recordings, as well as which attitudes, behaviors, or concrete traits were taken as references to identify manifestations of self-confidence and intrinsic motivation in students. Such clarification would strengthen the validity of the analysis and facilitate the replicability of the study.

These indicators are described in the Methodology section (lines 306-333; see the paragraph “Criteria for Selecting Video-Recorded Episodes for Analysis”). In the Results section, the episode descriptions note pupils’ emotional responses indicating (un)certainty, engagement in the activity, and self-assessment; they also demonstrate pupils’ awareness of progress and their desire (motivation) to undertake tasks they enjoy or tasks in which they have previously experienced success, to overcome challenges, and to try new opportunities. In addition and original episode examples in Lithuanian language were added as appendix A.

8. It is also recommended to adjust the methodological section to the structures commonly used in empirical research papers. In particular, it would be advisable to organize it into clearly differentiated subsections: methodological design, participants, instruments, data collection procedures, data analysis, and ethical considerations. This structure would not only provide greater order and coherence but would also allow readers to more systematically understand how the study was conducted and which methodological criteria were applied.

The text is organized in that matter. For clarification each section is presented in bold text.

9. Since the authors have chosen microethnography as the data collection procedure, it is clear that the study focuses on a particular reality. However, it would be relevant to state more explicitly that the selected sample corresponds to convenience sampling, mainly determined by accessibility, as it involves the students of the teacher-researcher. This aspect should be clearly indicated, as it conditions both the delimitation of the sample and the interpretation of the findings.

In lines 356-360 more clarified text was added: In this microethnographic study, a convenience sample was used for data collection, determined primarily by accessibility: the participants were the teacher–researcher’s pupils, selected with reference to purposive, criterion-based sampling. Accordingly, the analytical results pertain only to the selected sample of pupils with special educational needs (SEN).

10. It is also necessary to explain more explicitly the teacher’s involvement in the research. The fact that the teacher is both researcher and active subject within the study context may introduce convenience biases that affect the objectivity of the results. In particular, if the teacher analyzes their own practice, there is a risk that interpretations may be influenced by subjective perceptions or personal interests.

In qualitative social research, it is not always possible to avoid subjectivity; therefore, researcher reflexivity enables both the researcher and the reader to treat subjectivity not as a negative practice but as a factor that can shape the originality of the study and its results. Although the researcher is also a teacher with a close relationship to the participants, both the study design and the data are generated through the teacher–researcher role. Reflexivity is presented on the basis of principles of personal and interpersonal reflection. In this way, the element of subjectivity is at least partly neutralized by the researcher’s reflexive transparency and detailed explanation of the procedures for organizing and conducting the study, a clear articulation of the study’s strengths and limitations, an account of how the researcher’s characteristics may have influenced the research, and an explication of the mechanisms through which the findings were produced.

Personal reflection allows the researcher to examine expectations, assumptions and experiences—describing prior knowledge or experience relevant to the study, and considering how pre-existing experiences and motivations interacted with decision-making during the research. Interpersonal reflection allows the researcher to consider relationships with participants, including the participants’ active role in co-constructing the research processes and results (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023).

The chosen approach to researcher reflexivity is not constrained by specific methodological steps, phases or a fixed sequence; instead, the entire research process is reflected upon from the teacher–researcher’s perspective. The reflexive account is written in the first person—an accepted practice—because this style better conveys the researcher’s subjective experience within the research process.

Several parts of the text from the researcher`s reflexivity was added throughout the manuscript.

In addition at the end of section 2 of the manuscript a subsection of trustworthiness was added.

 

11. To address this limitation, it is suggested that the authors specify which mechanisms were implemented to ensure the reliability and objectivity of the data interpretation. Although the participation of another researcher in the observation and analysis is mentioned, it would be important to clarify to what extent this person’s involvement in the practice and school context provides an external perspective or, conversely, reproduces the same bias of involvement. Clearly presenting these strategies would strengthen the credibility of the study and its methodological transparency. Where applicable, this should be presented as a limitation of the study.

Involvement of a second researcher in observation, practice, or the school context was not applied and, following Byrne (2021), is not required in a microethnographic study or in reflexive thematic analysis (RTA). As Byrne (2021) notes:

“There should be no expectation that codes or themes interpreted by one researcher may be reproduced by another (although this is of course possible). Prospective proponents of RTA are discouraged from attempting to provide accounts of ‘accurate’ or ‘reliable’ coding, or pursuing consensus among multiple coders <...>. Rather, RTA is about ‘the researcher’s reflective and thoughtful engagement with their data and their reflexive and thoughtful engagement with the analytic process’ (Braun and Clarke, 2019, p. 594). <...> If analysis does involve more than one researcher, the approach should be collaborative and reflexive, aiming to achieve richer interpretations of meaning, rather than attempting to achieve consensus of meaning. Indeed, in this sense, it would be beneficial for proponents of RTA to remain cognizant that qualitative analysis as a whole does not contend to provide a single or ‘correct’ answer (Braun and Clarke, 2013).”

However, the involvement of a second researcher in this analysis of the microethnographic data helped to view not the video-recording, but their transcripts and the data on emotional-intelligence traits from an alternative perspective, revealing additional aspects when analyzing and interpreting the traits of self-confidence and intrinsic motivation. These insights informed the construction of the data analysis, the interpretation of results and the discussion, addressing the research questions. We consider that such participation by a second researcher strengthened the case for impartiality and enhanced the study’s objectivity to the greatest extent possible

12. In the section on participants, the authors tend to group all students with SEN into a single category. This homogenization may be problematic from an inclusive perspective, as it assumes that students with SEN form a homogeneous group, disregarding the diversity within it. Moreover, there is a risk of presuming that the condition of SEN generally entails greater difficulties in aspects such as self-confidence or motivation in Physical Education. Such an interpretation may lead to overgeneralizations and to attributing these difficulties exclusively to the SEN condition, without considering other individual or contextual factors.

Findings from other authors corroborate that pupils with special educational needs (SEN) do, in fact, experience difficulties with self-confidence and motivation, as the reviewer also notes. As we state in our microethnographic study (see lines 359-360, “Sample”): “Accordingly, the analytical results pertain only to the selected sample of pupils with special educational needs (SEN).,” and therefore we do not claim broad generalizations—indeed, the qualitative methodology itself does not permit such generalization.

13. It is important to note that students without an SEN diagnosis may also exhibit low motivation or self-esteem in Physical Education for various reasons (lack of interest in the subject, low physical fitness, negative past experiences, among others). Therefore, it would be appropriate for the authors to clarify how this dimension was considered in the analysis and how interpretive biases that overemphasize the influence of SEN were avoided.

Yes, we fully agree with the comment that pupils without special educational needs (SEN) may also display low motivation or self-esteem in physical education (PE) lessons. This observation further corroborates findings from research on emotional intelligence, which indicate that—structurally—the emotional intelligence of pupils with and without SEN does not differ; the crucial distinction is that pupils with SEN typically show lower overall levels and, compared with their typically developing peers, differ in specific traits such as self-confidence, self-esteem and motivation. In the article, we substantiate this point with evidence from Mavroveli and Sánchez-Ruiz (2011), Gaspar et al. (2016), Koukou et al. (2018), Maïano et al. (2019), Mulya & Lengkana (2020), Kim and Kutscher (2021), Nousia et al. (2022), Setiawan et al. (2023), Douma et al. (2025), Wiliyanto et al. (2025).

14. Additionally, within the group of students with SEN, it is important to differentiate the characteristics of each condition. The authors categorized all identified SEN under the same group. However, in some cases, the condition does not directly affect motor skills or social interaction, which allows students to achieve adequate levels of motivation and academic success in Physical Education. In this sense, it is recommended that the authors provide more detail on the characteristics of the participants, avoiding generalizations that could limit the interpretation of results and the inclusive potential of the study.

In response to the reviewer’s comments, an additional researcher reflexive note has been inserted in the “Sample” description (see lines 368-377), explaining why the participants and the results were not stratified by their specific diagnoses/conditions.

15. Regarding the data collection and analysis instrument, it would be advisable for the authors to specify more precisely how the template used for video analysis was developed (if one was used). Although it seems that an inductive coding process was employed, it is necessary to clarify the theoretical bases or conceptual criteria on which this process was grounded, as this adds greater solidity and scientific rigor to the research.

No template was used for the analysis of the video recordings. However, specific criteria were established to guide the selection of video-recorded episodes. These are described in the Methodology section; see the paragraph “Criteria for Selecting Video-Recorded Episodes for Analysis” (see lines 306-333). The theoretical foundations of the analysis are presented in the Methodology section under “Theoretical foundation of this study” (see lines 227-239).

16. It is also important to clarify how the video analysis was carried out: whether each researcher independently observed the recordings following the same coding criteria, or whether another procedure was used to ensure inter-rater validity and reliability. Detailing these methodological aspects would strengthen the transparency of the study and support the consistency of the results.

A clarifying text was added to lines 334-337: “The principal researcher independently reviewed the video recordings and transcribed them. The second researcher then systematically and repeatedly read the transcripts of episodes selected according to jointly agreed criteria and conducted the coding. The coding was subsequently discussed by both researchers and reconciled”.

17. The results section presents information extensively and descriptively, but it falls short of exhaustively addressing the study’s objectives. It is recommended that the authors synthesize the findings and organize them more clearly in relation to the research objectives, so that each result explicitly connects to them. In addition, it would be appropriate to include significant and representative examples that illustrate the most relevant findings, while avoiding the accumulation of unfocused descriptions that obscure the study’s central contribution.

A clarifying text was added in lines 452-458 and lines 494-497.

The Results section presents the key episodes—illustrative examples that depict the microethnographic findings and directly align with the study’s aim.

18. As for the discussion, it lacks clear differentiation from the results section. The discussion does not provide sufficient contrast with previous studies, nor does it demonstrate how the findings contribute to advancing knowledge in the field. To strengthen this section, it is suggested that the authors incorporate a comparative analysis with prior research in the area, showing similarities, discrepancies, and original contributions of the study. This integration would not only clarify the distinction between results and their interpretation but also highlight the study’s relevance and significance in the existing scientific literature.

Regarding this comment a note from the researcher`s reflexivity was added in lines 791-797, lines 971-987.

We consider that the authentic researcher reflexivity presented across the article contributes to the study’s originality and, in part, deepens knowledge, as the lived experiences reported by the researcher are seldom documented in prior work. The teacher–researcher role is crucial here, given the deep understanding of context, sustained presence in the field, and first-hand experience of interactions with pupils. This is an authentic qualitative microethnographic study that probes educational processes and teacher–pupil interactions rather than focusing on outcomes or change. Consequently, direct comparison of results with those of other authors is not straightforward.

In addressing this point within the scientific discussion, we draw not only on the findings but also on the overall study design, which augments existing knowledge. The results elucidate which methods and conditions can foster specific emotional-intelligence traits in the target sample of pupils with special educational needs—an aspect often under-specified in other studies.

In addition this section of the research was restructured into 6 subsections, adding more clarity on limitations, implications and future perspectives.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In Abstract, I would recommend including a precisely formulated research objective, while at the end of the theory section, it would seem more logical to first state the aim and only then the research questions.

Overall, the paper is theoretically sound, based on several theories (trait emotional intelligence, social-cognitive theory, social constructivism, etc.). Appropriate literature has been used.

The study uses a qualitative approach – micro-ethnographic methodology with extensive empirical material. The criteria are precisely identified. Data collection using multiple cameras is described in detail. The data is analyzed using reflective thematic analysis. The description of the methodology is detailed, but additional material (transcript fragments, codes) is lacking for complete reproducibility. Repeated data analysis is not fully possible without these elements. There is no information about code validation (e.g., inter-rater reliability/independent coder review or a description of how interpretive subjectivity was addressed). I would recommend adding Supplementary Materials with code names and examples.

The ethics of the study are described correctly.

In the discussion section, the results obtained in the study are successfully linked to theoretical analysis. At times, however, the authors' self-reflection is used as additional evidence. Of course, it is valuable and based on experience, but self-reflection is not verification. The authors should consider how these points could be strengthened scientifically.

The conclusions generally correspond to the empirical examples provided and the theoretical justification. However, it is advisable to avoid categorical statements about causality and to use more cautious formulations.

Author Response

Hello, first, we would like to thank you for your objective review, which has helped to improve the quality of our research. Alongside our comments and clarifications, we attach the finalised manuscript, which incorporates improvements addressing all three reviewers’ comments and recommendations.

Below, we explain how we responded to each of your comments:

1. In Abstract, I would recommend including a precisely formulated research objective, while at the end of the theory section, it would seem more logical to first state the aim and only then the research questions.

The aim was presented before the research questions. The object was presented in the abstract as follows: The research employed a microethnographic study that was directed at the research object: opportunities to develop pupils’ traits of self-confidence and intrinsic motivation.

2. Overall, the paper is theoretically sound, based on several theories (trait emotional intelligence, social-cognitive theory, social constructivism, etc.). Appropriate literature has been used.

Thank you for this acknowledgement.

3. The study uses a qualitative approach – micro-ethnographic methodology with extensive empirical material. The criteria are precisely identified. Data collection using multiple cameras is described in detail. The data is analyzed using reflective thematic analysis. The description of the methodology is detailed, but additional material (transcript fragments, codes) is lacking for complete reproducibility. Repeated data analysis is not fully possible without these elements.

A few examples of coded episodes were presented in appendix A. They are left as original, thus are in Lithuanian language and without any corrections.

4. There is no information about code validation (e.g., inter-rater reliability/independent coder review or a description of how interpretive subjectivity was addressed). I would recommend adding Supplementary Materials with code names and examples.

In addition to appendix A, a trustworthiness section has been added at the end of section 2, to both answer and strengthen your 4^th and 6^th comment details.

5. The ethics of the study are described correctly.

Thank you for this acknowledgement.

6. In the discussion section, the results obtained in the study are successfully linked to theoretical analysis. At times, however, the authors' self-reflection is used as additional evidence. Of course, it is valuable and based on experience, but self-reflection is not verification. The authors should consider how these points could be strengthened scientifically.

A trustworthiness section has been added at the end of section 2.

7. The conclusions generally correspond to the empirical examples provided and the theoretical justification. However, it is advisable to avoid categorical statements about causality and to use more cautious formulations.

Some formulations were clarified and replaced.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions help this paper, but it is still out of reach of most readers.

 

Pg. 4 lines 199-200 need a reference.

Pg. 5 your purpose statement is still in future tense. The ENTIRE study should be in past tense. PLEASE revise throughout.

Trustworthiness-this section makes no sense to me. What did you do to establish trustworthiness? Triangulation? Reflexive notes? You had two researchers review the data. There are many ways to establish trustworthiness. What you have described is just a definition of trustworthiness and your perspective. BUT here you need to state what you di related to this concept. Please see other qualitative papers for examples.

This paper is 31 pages. Do you have implications or a take away to help future teachers with children with multiple disabilities in PE? You say this “Upon successful implication of these findings PE lessons might gain additional functionality and importance. “ But you do not offer any useful strategies for the reader. Please add this.

With some thought on the reader who would likely be a PE teacher or scholar please think about your findings.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Make it in past tense

Author Response

Hello, once again we are grateful for your thoughtful feedback. Below we detail the revisions made:

1. Pg. 4, lines 199–200 need a reference.
   We have added the following references at lines 199–200: Carter et al. (2014); Bans-Akutey & Tiimub (2021); Munday & Horton (2021); Duchyminska et al. (2022).
2. Pg. 5: your purpose statement is still in future tense. The ENTIRE study should be in past tense. PLEASE revise throughout.
   The purpose statement and the full manuscript have been reviewed and revised to ensure consistent use of the past tense throughout.
3. Trustworthiness—this section makes no sense to me… you need to state what you did related to this concept.
   We have added text at lines 425–434 describing what we did to establish trustworthiness, with explicit attention to investigator triangulation (e.g., independent review and joint discussion of coding decisions). This addition clarifies procedures undertaken rather than defining the concept.
4. This paper is 31 pages… Do you have implications or a take-away to help future teachers with children with multiple disabilities in PE?
   We have added extra text outlining practical implications and actionable strategies for PE teachers and scholars at lines 1115–1136. This text translates the findings into concrete guidance for planning, instruction, and reflection in PE with pupils who have various disabilities.
5. With some thought on the reader who would likely be a PE teacher or scholar please think about your findings.
   Addressed alongside Comment 4: the new implications text (lines 1115–1136) is written for practitioner and scholarly audiences and highlights clear, implementable take-aways.

Please find the attached manuscript. We wish you a nice day.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the authors did a nice job of addressing some of my concerns, the implications section makes no sense. You do not give any concrete examples of how to increase these areas you discuss. Give examples if you know what they are. If not then this research does not have much meaning.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The words used are so flowery and long that it honestly makes no sense to me. I have been in the field for 37 years and I don't understand the terms and language used here.

Author Response

Hello, once again we have sought to take your comments into account and trust that this revision will be satisfactory.

1. While the authors did a nice job of addressing some of my concerns, the implications section makes no sense. You do not give any concrete examples of how to increase these areas you discuss. Give examples if you know what they are. If not then this research does not have much meaning.

In addition to the previous example (lines 1120-1125) we added another example (marked red in lines 1126-1132) and some clarifying text (marked red in lines 1133-1136; lines 1141-1145).

2. The words used are so flowery and long that it honestly makes no sense to me. I have been in the field for 37 years and I don't understand the terms and language used here.

With due respect to your experience and expertise, we consider that the language of our manuscript is academic, correct, and consonant with the conventions of scientific writing. We have maintained a consistent terminology throughout and, in line with your request, revised the text into the past tense. We also note that neither of your other reviewer colleagues have provided concerns about style or word choice during the preparation of this article; moreover, all three reviewers in the first round indicated that the English was suitable. The authorship of the manuscript has not changed since then, and our writing style and terminology have therefore remained consistent, without devaluating the content of this research.

We noticed that the latest version of the manuscript involves markings and comments. We did not address or change them in any way.