Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this piece. It was inspiring and informative. You will find my insights reflect the nature and purposes of the work -as reflective of its advocacy and confirmatory notions as much as its coverage and modelling of good practices and quality resources to support this journey. Please use them as suits your dominant agenda.

Qualification to ratings instrumentation:

Where I have depicted an 'average' in quality of structure and clarity, it is closer to high, higher than average, and I think can be improved with just a wee bit of refinement across the 'Results' section. My apologies for that linear depiction seen above- it is not quite accurate- were it along a sliding spectrum zone it would be at the edges of high.

 (Out of interest-How did colleagues find that term results fit with your piece?).  

Respectfully,

Reviewer. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract - What do colleagues think as regard making the more nuanced phraseology currently found; *“Through tools like….” ? & position the PE Competencies Wheel and the Wholistic Verb Wheel with boldness.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, the necessary adjustments in the abstract have been made. As you will note on page 1, lines 10-25, “Through tools like…” was removed, and the structure was reworked to position the PE Competencies Wheel, QPE Foundations Framework, and the QPE Outcomes Framework–Skills for Life with boldness. 

 

Comments 2: What with the extent and differing direction of said tables, is it possible for the team to separate the preceding lead in section (L 117-123) into two discrete sets? That way one table could be introduced and contextualised. Then, a discrete lead into Table 2 could ensue. These are both of tacit value and would do well with respective micro spaces. Given the apparent scaffolded justification of these, it remains unclear to the reader how the former encompasses the full K12, yet the continuing argument utilises a price with just Grades 1-6. Therefore, an additional piece and or a caveat to the statement would be very welcome. 

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, the necessary adjustments were made. L-117-123 remain, and the original section about Table 2 has been moved and reworked on page 4, L 126-129.

 

Comments 3: The section -paragraph from L 132-146 is most poignant as regards rationale discourse around competencies through policy standpoints. The story approach keeps the reader engaged with the momentum of the progression across the foundational introduction section. A substantive journey is travelled and made good sense of. 

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. Our intent was to include brief storytelling approaches to retain engagement while maintaining academic writing structure. 

 

Comments 4: What with the type of piece this is, are there means to support any implicit assertions across this section? 

Response 4: Thank you. This was an important reflective question for the authors. We made adjustments to L 194-201 on page 6, adding to our implicit assertions across this section and added in-text citations to reference literature that can attest to such assertions. 

 

Comments 5: Regarding tabulations, what with the depth and weight of the paper, each and all could be placed in ways that avoid their listing on top of one another e.g. such as Table 1 and 2 -raised in the review. 

Response 5: Thank you for this formatting note. We have made such changes which are reflected on 4 and 5, L 126 -161.

 

Comments 6: Additional opportunity to ensure each ‘pops’ out for the reader is with Table 4.,(Line 255) as it come straight after 3.1. Figure 1 (L254).

Response 6: Thank you for this note. More separation between Figure 1 and Table 4 was created to each “pops” better. Please see page 8, 9 and 10.

 

Comments 7: Whilst there are very helpful (and methodical) linking signposts, a potential narrated step with each could further enhance the presentation and appreciation of these. That will open these out further for the reader- for clarity, analysis and then to convert as they reflect and move to utilize for their own practices

Response 7: I sincerely appreciate your note on this. Throughout the entire results section, please see the changes to incorporate a more narrated approach, which now separates each table and figure to enhance the presentation and inherent importance/relevance. This can be seen between pages 10 and 17, where new lines were added to clearly define and articulate the results section’s purpose. 

 

Comments 8: Re:  Conclusion: The deliberation through the final messages provides constructive and informed ways forward. These are honest and bold, and speak to pre and in-service educators, as much as to all related stakeholders. An equitable, current and future facing commitment by PHE Canada is clearly communicated to end the guided exploration. This matches and reflects the initial intent. This piece will add value to the wider literature as much as help each stakeholder in stated context. The dynamic and interactive fell of the piece provides a splendid and embodied analysis of work and means to remain student centred through quality physical education.

Response 8: Thank you for this comment. We hope the two new frameworks, Foundations & Outcomes, will serve as a way forward for pre-and in-service PE teacher training. We also look forward to the potential contributions to wider literature as the frameworks are new, but rooted in many pedagogical best practices.

Final response: As other reviewers indicated the manuscript requires "major revisions", there was multiple changes made throughout. This includes updates to the abstract and all other sections. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment:

The article comprehensively addresses the definition, importance, and applicability of quality physical education (QPE) within the framework of Canadian PHE competencies. The topic is current and important in terms of national education policies, curriculum development processes, and pedagogical approaches. The text is generally well-structured, understandable, supported by literature, and has high potential to contribute to the field.

The article is written in a clear, fluent, and academically standard language. Terms are used consistently, and concepts are clearly defined. However, the dense technical content in the PE Competencies Wheel and Wholistic Verb Wheel sections may be challenging for readers unfamiliar with the subject. Adding short summary boxes or schematic explanations in these sections could balance the conceptual density.

The study explains the current state of physical education curricula in Canada, their shortcomings, and the role of the proposed framework in a multidimensional manner. Tables 1 and 2 clearly present a comparative analysis of the current state. However, there are no concrete field examples or quantitative data regarding the model's applicability. Adding case studies from different regions would strengthen the practical impact of the proposed approach.

The objectives and research questions are clearly defined and linked to the national and international context. The literature support is strong. In order to emphasize the international validity of the framework, it is recommended to include brief comparisons with applications of QPE outside Canada.

The study focuses on developing a conceptual framework rather than experimental data. The development process carried out by PHE Canada, stakeholder participation, and literature review are clearly presented. However, if the scope of stakeholder contributions, selection criteria, and decision-making processes are presented in a more systematic manner, reproducibility and transparency will increase.

The findings are presented systematically, and the discussion section comprehensively addresses the application and policy dimensions of the proposed frameworks. A logical relationship has been established between the findings and the conclusions. However, the inclusion of concrete examples of classroom applications or brief data on changes observed in student outcomes would further convince the reader.

The conclusions are consistent with the findings and literature presented throughout the article. QPE's multidimensional development approach is strongly grounded. However, adding evaluation metrics to track long-term impact and sustainability strategies would make the conclusions more actionable.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The article is written in a clear, fluent, and academically standard language. Terms are used consistently, and concepts are clearly defined. However, the dense technical content in the PE Competencies Wheel and Wholistic Verb Wheel sections may be challenging for readers unfamiliar with the subject. Adding short summary boxes or schematic explanations in these sections could balance the conceptual density.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We have accordingly condensed and dispersed content throughout the Results section for the PE Competencies Wheel and Wholistic Verb Wheel sections. Please note such major revisions between pages 8-13, lines 278-372. In addition, note some content shifts and further explanations in the Discussion section, page 19-23, lines 549-673.

Response 6: Lastly, Please note major revisions made throughout the manuscript, including the abstract and all other sections as "major revisions" was indicated by multiple reviewers. 

Comment 2: The study explains the current state of physical education curricula in Canada, their shortcomings, and the role of the proposed framework in a multidimensional manner. Tables 1 and 2 clearly present a comparative analysis of the current state. However, there are no concrete field examples or quantitative data regarding the model's applicability. Adding case studies from different regions would strengthen the practical impact of the proposed approach.

Response 2: Thank you for your notes on adding case studies from different regions. As this is specific to Canadian PE curriculum, the information in the tables pertains to quantitative data retrieved from a meta-analysis and internal research of Canadian province and territorties Ministry of Education PE curriculum documents. The tables were referenced again in the Limitations  section to further explain their relevance and significance. Therefore, we felt no changes were necessary.

 

Comment 3: The objectives and research questions are clearly defined and linked to the national and international context. The literature support is strong. In order to emphasize the international validity of the framework, it is recommended to include brief comparisons with applications of QPE outside Canada.

Response 3: Thank you for your note. We made additions to brief references of QPE outside of Canada, referencing UNESCO and WHO global goals and how these are infused within the various frameworks presented in this manuscript. We did not feel it was necessary to include brief, additional descriptions that comparer QPE to other countries/locations outside of Canada as the frameworks explored and referenced are correlated to UNESCO and the WHOs PE global/holistic learning objectives across all grades and need to include evidence-based and practice-informed approaches and pedagogies, as well as diverse perspectives in teaching and learning PE. Please refer to in-text citations related to: UNESCO, 2021; UNESCO, 2022; World Health Organization & UNESCO, ‎2021; World Health Organization, 2021 & 2022.

 

Comment 4: The findings are presented systematically, and the discussion section comprehensively addresses the application and policy dimensions of the proposed frameworks. A logical relationship has been established between the findings and the conclusions. However, the inclusion of concrete examples of classroom applications or brief data on changes observed in student outcomes would further convince the reader.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment on the “inclusion of concrete examples of classroom applications or brief data on changes observed in student outcomes” to further convince the reader. In the Discussion section, throughout pages 19-29, lines 550-987, multiple examples that could occur in classrooms was included. Please refer to words like “For example”, “for instance”, or “Such as” for those inclusions. 

Comment 5: The conclusions are consistent with the findings and literature presented throughout the article. QPE's multidimensional development approach is strongly grounded. However, adding evaluation metrics to track long-term impact and sustainability strategies would make the conclusions more actionable.

Response 5: Thank you for this note. As the introduction of the two-part framework: QPE Foundations & Outcomes, are newer strategies, we understand the comment on needing to add “evaluation metrics to track long-term impact and sustainability strategies” to make the conclusion more actionable. Therefore, we have made note of this, which is reflect on Page 30, lines 1045-1057.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read this article.

The article is very interesting and well grounded. I still have some concerns:

• Overly descriptive and limited critical analysis of PE frameworks.
• Promotional tone at times weakens scholarly neutrality.
• Lack of empirical data and measurable outcomes.
• The "Results" section is a continuation of the framework description.
• Dependence on non-mandated adoption of Canadian PHE Competencies.
• Framework overlap and complexity.
• Lack of realistic pathways for adoption in resource-limited schools.
• Teacher workload and competing curriculum priorities are acknowledged but not addressed.
• Limited acknowledgment of diverse contexts, including Indigenous perspectives and regional cultural and socio-economic disparities.
• Frequent repetition of key concepts dilutes impact and lengthens the manuscript.
• Absence of counterarguments and potential failures or misalignments in past initiatives.

Other comment:

•  Formatting style do not respect the template

•  Please emphasize the innovative value and your contribution.

Author Response

Comment 1: Overly descriptive and limited critical analysis of PE frameworks.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. In the Results section, we condensed the descriptions of the introduced frameworks, and this can be found in the revised manuscript on pages 7- 18, lines 234-483. In the Discussion section on pages 18-29, lines 485-1017, we made changes to ensure a more thorough critical analysis of the PE frameworks. Please note, as these frameworks are a new pathway for explaining what is involved in a QPE program and the benefits it provides, which includes the definition of QPE as seen on page 18, lines 496-521, there were references made that they connect to QPE outside of Canada, referencing UNESCO and WHO global goals and how these are infused within the various frameworks presented in this manuscript. We did not feel it was necessary to include brief, additional descriptions that comparer QPE to other countries/locations outside of Canada as the frameworks explored and referenced are correlated to UNESCO and the WHOs PE global/holistic learning objectives across all grades and need to include evidence-based and practice-informed approaches and pedagogies, as well as diverse perspectives in teaching and learning PE. Please refer to in-text citations related to: UNESCO, 2021; UNESCO, 2022; World Health Organization & UNESCO, ‎2021; World Health Organization, 2021 & 2022.

Comment 2: Promotional tone at times weakens scholarly neutrality.

Response 2: Thank you for this note. Slight modifications were made throughout the manuscript to limit an potential “promotional tones”. However, as the content in this manuscript is describing and introducing new frameworks for understanding and teaching QPE, we felt that certain sections did not require changes. However, please refer to the Conclusion section on pages 29-31, lines 1018-1093 as the majority of modifications to potential “promotional tones” were made here. 

Comment 3: Lack of empirical data and measurable outcomes.

Response 3: Thank you for this note. As the introduction of the two-part framework: QPE Foundations & Outcomes, are newer strategies and resources, we understand the comment on “Lack of empirical data and measurable outcomes”. Therefore, we have made note of this, which is reflect on Page 30, lines 1051-1057.

Comment 4: The "Results" section is a continuation of the framework description.

Response 4: Thank you for this note. Many changes and modifications were made to the Results section to ensure descriptions weren’t repetitive and were relevant. An example of these specific changes can be seen on pages 14-16, lines 378-463, and Tables 5-8. Additionally, please note that while we recognize Table 4 is a (most likely) a continuation of content in Figure 1, we felt it was necessary to include Table 4 from an accessibility lens as it is a quicker reference back to the content and we wanted to have the Four PE Comeptencies explained separately than the inner circle of the PE Competencies Wheel as both parts were infused into the new two-part QPE Frameworks: Foundations & Outcomes. 

Comment 5: Dependence on non-mandated adoption of Canadian PHE Competencies.

Response 5: Thank you for this note. As we recognize the Canadian PHE Competencies is not (currently) a mandated adoption in PE curricula, it serves as a standardized best practice reference document that many provinces and territories throughout Canada are utilizing for their PHE curriculum updates. Current research on this consideration and inclusion for PE curricula reform and the need to utilize the Canadian PHE Competencies is newer, but such research can be referred to in in-text citations and examples such as the following:

• Sulz, L., Morrison, H., Robinson, D. B., & Barrett, J. (2025). Contemporary physical education curricula across Canada: an overview and analysis. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2025.2486622
• Robinson, D. B., Sulz, L., Morrison, H., Wilson, L., & Harding-Kuriger, J. (2023). Health education curricula in Canada: an overview and analysis. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 15(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2023.2178944
• Sulz, L., Robinson, D. B., Morrison, H., Read, J., Johnson, A., Johnston, L., & Frail, K. (2024). A scoping review of K–12 health education in Canada: understanding school stakeholders’ perceptions. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 16(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2024.2311113 

 

Comment 6: Framework overlap and complexity.

Response 6: Regarding this comment, we were unsure if it was intended to be a constructive feedback suggestion for edits or simply an observation of manuscript content. If it was to be noted as recommended changes, no changes were made to the overlaps in the frameworks are intention to reflect a schematic approach and understanding. For example, the Comeptencies frameworks (PE Competencies Wheel & Wholistic Verb Wheel) were original designed for curriculum writers and developers. The two-part QPE frameworks: Foundations and Outcomes, are geared towards educators, administrators, and PETE teacher educators as a tool for understanding and implementing the foundational components of a QPE program and the benefits in a more digestible manner. 

Comment 7: Lack of realistic pathways for adoption in resource-limited schools.

Response 7: We accordingly made modifications to ensure realistic pathways for adoption. Throughout the Discussion section, seen in pages 19-29, lines 550-987, multiple examples that could occur in classrooms (K-12 or PETE) was included. Please refer to words like “For example”, “for instance”, or “Such as” for those inclusions. 

 

Comment 8: Teacher workload and competing curriculum priorities are acknowledged but not addressed.

Response 8: Thank you for this note. We felt it was unnecessary to dive deeper into “Teacher workload and competing curriculum priorities”. As mentioned in the comment, these were acknowledged, and we might slight modifications to briefly address this further, which can be seen in the Conclusion section on page 31, lines 1072-1083.

Comment 9: Limited acknowledgment of diverse contexts, including Indigenous perspectives and regional cultural and socio-economic disparities.

Response 9: Thank you for your note. There is reference and acknowledgement to diverse contexts, such as Indigenous perspectives as seen in page 7, lines 217-232; Table 3; page 11, lines 319-329; page 18, line 490; pages 18-19, lines 522-543. We as authors, acknowledge that such “Indigenous perspectives and regional cultural and socio-economic disparities” may note have been explained in a deeper context; however, we feel it is unnecessary, as it will not keep the manuscript concise to the topic discussed and referenced. References to the diverse contexts is weaved throughout the manuscript.  

Comment 10: Frequent repetition of key concepts dilutes impact and lengthens the manuscript.

Response 10: Thank you for this note. We did review all content and made necessary corrections and deletions, as well as condensed where applicable to limit potential repetition in content. 

Comment 11: Absence of counterarguments and potential failures or misalignments in past initiatives.

Response 11: Thank you for this comment. We reject this change and addition to counterarguments. 

 

Comment 12: Formatting style do not respect the template

Response 12: Thank you for this note. We followed the initial template provided by MDPI and will connect with the main reviewer overseeing our manuscript to ensure formatting consistency is respected. 

 

Comment 13: Please emphasize the innovative value and your contribution.

Response 13: Thank you for this note as we found it very helpful. Throughout the manuscript we “emphasize the innovative value and your contribution” which can be seen in the updated Discussion and Conclusion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has several improvements, including streamlined framework descriptions, stronger critical analysis, and a reduced promotional tone. The authors acknowledge limitations, address adoption challenges, and include diverse perspectives. The final Discussion and Conclusion emphasize the innovative value of the QPE Foundations & Outcomes frameworks as tools for educators and policymakers. However, some reviewer requests were deliberately rejected, resulting in a more concise and impactful paper. Overall, the manuscript is substantially improved.