‘We Just Do What the Teacher Says’—Students’ Perspectives on Participation in ‘Inclusive’ Physical Education Classes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic at the intersection of participation, diversity, and normative expectations related to body and performance in Physical Education (PE). Drawing on qualitative interviews with secondary school students, it contributes to current debates on democratic participation, inclusion, and diversity-sensitive pedagogical approaches. The combination of category-based qualitative analysis with student portraits is a strength and offers nuanced insight.

 

• The paper introduces several relevant theoretical strands—diversity-sensitive didactics, participatory structures, democratic education, body norms—but they remain loosely connected.
  The authors should more clearly articulate how these frameworks interact and how they inform the research questions and category construction.

• The research aim is stated, but the research questions should be more precisely formulated.
  What exactly is being explored: manifestations of participation, role of body norms, or interplay of participation and diversity?
  Currently, the aim section is descriptive but not sufficiently specific.

• Although the sample is described as “purposefully composed,” more detail is needed.
  → What criteria guided selection of schools and student groups?
  → How were participants recruited?
  → What diversity dimensions were considered a priori?

• Interview guide:
  The main themes are listed, but it would strengthen the study to provide examples of guiding questions or to include the interview guide in a supplementary file.

• Positionality statement:
  The authors mention their positionality only in the limitations section.
  Given the topic, it should be acknowledged earlier as part of the methodology.

• Data analysis:
  While the general approach is described (structuring qualitative content analysis), the process remains somewhat vague.
  → What was the deductive framework?
  → How were inductive categories derived?
  → How were disagreements between coders resolved?

• Consider providing a summary table of the category system in the main text (not only in Supplement 1), as this would support transparency and readability.
• Add a concise paragraph explaining what this study adds to existing research
• Figure 1 is referenced but does not appear in the manuscript excerpt.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for your time, expertise, and thoughtful engagement you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your detailed comments, critical insights, and constructive suggestions have been extremely valuable in helping us strengthen the conceptual grounding, methodological transparency, and analytical clarity of the paper.

We carefully considered your points and have revised the manuscript accordingly. These revisions include a clearer articulation of the theoretical framework, an expanded and more transparent methodological section (including sampling, data collection, researcher positionality, and analytical procedures), a more precise description of our category system, and a refined integration of the empirical findings. We have also polished the language throughout the manuscript to enhance readability and coherence.

We are thankful for the opportunity to further improve the manuscript through your feedback and hope that the revised version now meets the journal’s expectations. All content-related changes are marked in yellow and answered point-by-point below.

Comment 1: The paper introduces several relevant theoretical strands—diversity-sensitive didactics, participatory structures, democratic education, body norms—but they remain loosely connected. The authors should more clearly articulate how these frameworks interact and how they inform the research questions and category construction.

Response 1: We revised the theoretical background and highlighted the intersectionality of our theoretical concepts. We also described in more detail, how this leads to our research questions and the building of the categories.

Comment 2: The research aim is stated, but the research questions should be more precisely formulated.
What exactly is being explored: manifestations of participation, role of body norms, or interplay of participation and diversity?
Currently, the aim section is descriptive but not sufficiently specific.

Response 2: We now clearly formulated the research questions which are followed throughout the paper (see end of introduction, methods as well as discussion). 

Comment 3: Although the sample is described as “purposefully composed,” more detail is needed.
→ What criteria guided selection of schools and student groups?
→ How were participants recruited?
→ What diversity dimensions were considered a priori?

Response 3: We expanded the sampling description by specifying school selection criteria (institutional diversity, regional and socio-economic variation) and by detailing the recruitment procedure, including the role of PE teachers as gatekeepers and potential selection bias. Further we added some contextual information about PE in the national context.

Comment 4: Interview guide:
The main themes are listed, but it would strengthen the study to provide examples of guiding questions or to include the interview guide in a supplementary file.

Response 4: We now added concrete example questions.

Comment 5: Positionality statement: The authors mention their positionality only in the limitations section.
Given the topic, it should be acknowledged earlier as part of the methodology.

Response 5: We added the positionality section into the methodology and substantially elaborated it, including reflections on researcher assumptions and adult–child power dynamics.

Comment 6: Data analysis:
While the general approach is described (structuring qualitative content analysis), the process remains somewhat vague.
→ What was the deductive framework?
→ How were inductive categories derived?
→ How were disagreements between coders resolved?

Response 6: We clarified the development of the codes with deductive and inductive steps. Further, we described how disagreements in coding were resolved through consensual validation, and detailed peer debriefing procedures.

Comment 7: Consider providing a summary table of the category system in the main text (not only in Supplement 1), as this would support transparency and readability.

Response 7: We now mentioned the category system already in the text as table 2 and not in the supplements. 

Comment 8: Add a concise paragraph explaining what this study adds to existing research

Response 8: We revised the conclusion accordingly and explicitly mentioned the added value there. 

Comment 9: Figure 1 is referenced but does not appear in the manuscript excerpt.

Response 9: Thanks, we double-checked for that.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is relevant and timely, aligning with current debates on inclusion and how to address diversity in PE teaching. While the effort to foreground students’ perspectives is commendable, the paper tends to reproduce established frameworks rather than advance them. It does not present genuinely new knowledge. Still, it is a well-written paper, and the theoretical discussion is well-informed, though largely descriptive. The findings remain too close to the raw interview data, lacking deeper analytical interpretation within the context of diversity-oriented pedagogy.

The authors should clarify what is meant by “inclusive PE.” Similarly, the paper should explain how participation is conceptualized within the broader frameworks of inclusion and democratic education. Is it merely about providing equal opportunities for all, or does it imply a broader transformation of teaching and learning practices? The authors state their aim is “to investigate participation in the sense of democratic education in PE,” yet this raises further questions: What is democratic PE about?

In my view, the methodological section lacks transparency and detail. Although the study uses semi-structured interviews analysed through a structuring qualitative content analysis, the analytical procedures are not described in enough depth. While the authors mention that both deductive and inductive approaches were used, it is unclear which predominated or how theoretical frameworks guided the deductive coding. The process of category generation, coder agreement, and validation is insufficiently detailed. Likewise, the description of the interview process is overly brief - examples of guiding questions would be helpful.

Although the manuscript states that students provided consent, it does not specify whether parental or guardian consent was obtained. Given that the participants were minors, it would be advisable to clarify this aspect to ensure full transparency regarding ethical approval and data collection procedures.

The five main categories (Moments of Participation, Self-positioning, Body, Performance, and Assessment) are informative but remain largely descriptive. The authors should more clearly articulate how their results extend existing research or challenge prevailing assumptions in PE pedagogy. Drawing on a broader range of international and critical perspectives could also strengthen the theoretical contribution, moving beyond the largely national context of diversity-sensitive didactics, participatory practices, and democratic education. Connections with assessment for learning could also enrich the analysis.

The student portraits, while rich, could be used more analytically to show contrasts or tensions across cases rather than merely illustrating categories. As I commented, I think it would also have been valuable to consider subject-matter differences within PE, since some subjects/domains - such as team invasion games- tend to be more exclusionary due to their competitive and culturally embedded nature. Furthermore, the study would benefit from a clearer curricular framing, situating its discussion within the national PE curriculum of the country where the research was conducted.

It would be advisable to explicitly reference Supplement 1 within the main text of the article, ensuring that readers are aware of where to find the detailed category system and anchor examples.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for your time, expertise, and thoughtful engagement you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your detailed comments, critical insights, and constructive suggestions have been extremely valuable in helping us strengthen the conceptual grounding, methodological transparency, and analytical clarity of the paper.

We carefully considered your points and have revised the manuscript accordingly. These revisions include a clearer articulation of the theoretical framework, an expanded and more transparent methodological section (including sampling, data collection, researcher positionality, and analytical procedures), a more precise description of our category system, and a refined integration of the empirical findings. We have also polished the language throughout the manuscript to enhance readability and coherence.

We are thankful for the opportunity to further improve the manuscript through your feedback and hope that the revised version now meets the journal’s expectations. All content-related changes are marked in yellow and answered point-by-point below.

Comment 1: While the effort to foreground students’ perspectives is commendable, the paper tends to reproduce established frameworks rather than advance them. It does not present genuinely new knowledge.

Response 1: What is new is the connection between participation, body and performance norms, and the related positioning in the social structure from the learners' perspective. This leads to a decisive demand for democratic education that addresses precisely these points. With our revision, we tried to strengthen these points.

Comment 2: The findings remain too close to the raw interview data, lacking deeper analytical interpretation within the context of diversity-oriented pedagogy.

Response 2: We revised the section to provide a clearer step-by-step explanation of data collection and coding process, reflexive procedures, and analytic orientation. 

Comment 3: The authors should clarify what is meant by “inclusive PE.” Similarly, the paper should explain how participation is conceptualized within the broader frameworks of inclusion and democratic education. Is it merely about providing equal opportunities for all, or does it imply a broader transformation of teaching and learning practices? The authors state their aim is “to investigate participation in the sense of democratic education in PE,” yet this raises further questions: What is democratic PE about?

Response 3: We revised the theoretical background and explained all relevant constructs regarding our study.  This encompasses both what we understand by “inclusive” (the subjective feeling of belonging) and an understanding of “inclusive” that is common in school practice and based on the composition of a learning group. The latter served as the basis for the sample selection (the students surveyed attend learning groups that are understood as “inclusive” in this sense, with regard to established dimensions of diversity). The study reveals discrepancies: so-called “inclusive” PE is not inclusive (in the sense of subjective experience).

Comment 4: Interview procedure not detailed enough

Response 4: We expanded the description of the interview process.

Comment 5: Parental consent must be clarified

Response 5: We added explicit information stating that written informed consent was obtained from both students and parents/guardians.

Comment 6: Increase methodological transparency

Response 6: We revised the section to provide a clearer step-by-step explanation of coding, reflexive procedures, and analytic orientation.

Comment 7: Explicitly reference Supplement 1 within the main text of the article

Response 7: We agreed to already mention the table of Supplement 1 already in the text (new Table 2).

Comment 8: The five main categories (Moments of Participation, Self-positioning, Body, Performance, and Assessment) are informative but remain largely descriptive. The authors should more clearly articulate how their results extend existing research or challenge prevailing assumptions in PE pedagogy. 

Response 8: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. The results section has been fundamentally revised. The categories have now been presented in a less descriptive manner, allowing more room for interpretation in line with the research objective. This also includes greater consideration of the connections between the categories.

Comment 9: Drawing on a broader range of international and critical perspectives could also strengthen the theoretical contribution, moving beyond the largely national context of diversity-sensitive didactics, participatory practices, and democratic education. Connections with assessment for learning could also enrich the analysis.

Response 9: Thank you for this valid objection. We enlarged the perspective and literature with international works in this context. 

Comment 10: The student portraits, while rich, could be used more analytically to show contrasts or tensions across cases rather than merely illustrating categories. 

Response 10: Thank you for that too. The portraits have been revised accordingly to clarify the contrast between them and enable greater analytical depth.

Comment 11: As I commented, I think it would also have been valuable to consider subject-matter differences within PE, since some subjects/domains - such as team invasion games- tend to be more exclusionary due to their competitive and culturally embedded nature.

Response 11: Thank you for this valuable comment. It is indeed reasonable to assume that there are differences in terms of domains. However, since the sampling and the interviews did not focus on domains, this study could only provide sporadic findings on this question, which did not seem appropriate to us. In our opinion, it would be valuable to focus on this in a further research project.

Comment 12: Furthermore, the study would benefit from a clearer curricular framing, situating its discussion within the national PE curriculum of the country where the research was conducted

Response 12: Thank you for bringing this up. We provided some context about the national curriculum in the description of the sample.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a qualitative study exploring how diversity, participation, and body and performance understandings intersect in Physical Education (PE) contexts. Through interviews with students and the development of three in-depth portraits, the authors seek to illuminate the ways in which young learners navigate issues of agency, belonging, and exclusion within PE. The topic is both timely and relevant, engaging with questions of inclusivity, equity, and democratic participation in educational practice. However, while the study is conceptually promising and methodologically rich in potential, several areas require clarification and further development to ensure that the article meets the journal’s scholarly standards and achieves coherence between theoretical grounding, methodological rigor, and empirical interpretation.

The paper provides a detailed description of the findings and includes an extensive discussion linking the results to relevant theoretical frameworks such as Eikel’s (2007) model of democratic participation. The inclusion of three student portraits (Anna, Felix, and Marta) is a compelling methodological choice that humanizes the data and gives voice to diverse experiences of participation. These vignettes add nuance and depth, demonstrating how social positioning, gender, and body-related norms affect engagement and exclusion in PE. The focus on the interplay between individual agency and structural norms is particularly valuable, offering potential for a critical contribution to the literature on inclusive and diversity-sensitive PE pedagogy.

Nevertheless, the manuscript would benefit from a stronger connection between the results and the broader theoretical and empirical landscape of educational research. While the discussion refers to relevant sources (e.g., Eikel, 2007; Ruin & Meier, 2017; Gerdin, 2025), the engagement with recent and international scholarship on inclusion and student agency in PE is limited. Expanding the literature review to situate the study within wider debates on embodiment, diversity, and social justice in education would enhance its scholarly reach. Similarly, more explicit articulation of how this study advances existing research is needed. The authors could clarify in what ways their findings confirm, challenge, or extend prior work, and how their conceptualization of “democratic participation” adds to current understandings of inclusivity in PE contexts.

The methodological design is clearly qualitative and interpretative, but important details are missing. The sampling rationale, interview procedures, and analytic framework (e.g., coding process, triangulation, and researcher reflexivity) should be explained in greater depth. The acknowledgment of the researchers’ positionality is commendable, yet its implications for data collection and interpretation should be analyzed more critically, not only mentioned as a limitation. Similarly, while the discussion acknowledges that the sample is small and regionally bounded, the authors could elaborate on the transferability of findings and how these insights might inform educational practice beyond the local context.

The results section is rich and well structured, but sometimes excessively descriptive. At times, the narrative reproduces long quotations and repetitive category explanations, which risk obscuring the analytical voice of the authors. The text would benefit from a more interpretative synthesis, linking each category (Moments of Participation, Self-positioning, Understanding of the Body, Understanding of Performance, and Performance Requirements) more explicitly to the research questions and theoretical framework. The three portraits are engaging and illustrate key findings effectively; however, their integration into the broader argument could be improved, as they currently read as parallel narratives rather than as embedded analytical exemplars.

In terms of writing, the English is generally understandable but would benefit from language polishing to improve precision, fluency, and cohesion. Some sentences are overly long or repetitive, and certain concepts (e.g., “sportivity,” “objectifying perspectives”) would be clearer with more consistent phrasing. A professional language edit by a native or near-native academic speaker is recommended to ensure clarity and stylistic consistency throughout.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for your time, expertise, and thoughtful engagement you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your detailed comments, critical insights, and constructive suggestions have been extremely valuable in helping us strengthen the conceptual grounding, methodological transparency, and analytical clarity of the paper.

We carefully considered your points and have revised the manuscript accordingly. These revisions include a clearer articulation of the theoretical framework, an expanded and more transparent methodological section (including sampling, data collection, researcher positionality, and analytical procedures), a more precise description of our category system, and a refined integration of the empirical findings. We have also polished the language throughout the manuscript to enhance readability and coherence.

We are thankful for the opportunity to further improve the manuscript through your feedback and hope that the revised version now meets the journal’s expectations. All content-related changes are marked in yellow and answered point-by-point below.

Comment 1: the manuscript would benefit from a stronger connection between the results and the broader theoretical and empirical landscape of educational research

Response 1: Thank you for this valid objection. We enlarged the literature with international works in this context and tried to connect our findings with educational research.

Comment 2: While the discussion refers to relevant sources (e.g., Eikel, 2007; Ruin & Meier, 2017; Gerdin, 2025), the engagement with recent and international scholarship on inclusion and student agency in PE is limited. Expanding the literature review to situate the study within wider debates on embodiment, diversity, and social justice in education would enhance its scholarly reach.

Response 2: What is new is the connection between participation, body and performance norms, and the related positioning in the social structure from the learners' perspective. This leads to a decisive demand for democratic education that addresses precisely these points. With our revision, we tried to strengthen these points.

Comment 3: Similarly, more explicit articulation of how this study advances existing research is needed. The authors could clarify in what ways their findings confirm, challenge, or extend prior work, and how their conceptualization of “democratic participation” adds to current understandings of inclusivity in PE contexts.

Response 3: We revised the conclusion accordingly and explicitly mentioned the added value there.

Comment 4: The methodological design is clearly qualitative and interpretative, but important details are missing. The sampling rationale, interview procedures, and analytic framework (e.g., coding process, triangulation, and researcher reflexivity) should be explained in greater depth

Response 4: We revised the section to provide a clearer step-by-step explanation of data collection and coding process, reflexive procedures, and analytic orientation.

Comment 5: researchers’ positionality is commendable, yet its implications for data collection and interpretation should be analyzed more critically, not only mentioned as a limitation.

Response 5: We expanded the positionality section to address researchers’ embodied perspectives, adult–child hierarchies, linguistic asymmetries, and the co-construction of meaning in interviews.

Comment 6: while the discussion acknowledges that the sample is small and regionally bounded, the authors could elaborate on the transferability of findings and how these insights might inform educational practice beyond the local context.

Response 6: Thank you very much for this comment. The conclusion has been revised to provide a corresponding addition.

Comment 7: The results section is rich and well structured, but sometimes excessively descriptive. At times, the narrative reproduces long quotations and repetitive category explanations, which risk obscuring the analytical voice of the authors. 

Response 7: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. As mentioned above, the results have now been presented in a less descriptive manner, allowing more room for interpretation in line with the research objective and linking this to the theoretical foundations of the study. This also includes greater consideration of the connections between the categories.

Comment 8: The text would benefit from a more interpretative synthesis, linking each category (Moments of Participation, Self-positioning, Understanding of the Body, Understanding of Performance, and Performance Requirements) more explicitly to the research questions and theoretical framework. 

Response 8: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. The results section has been fundamentally revised. The categories have now been presented in a less descriptive manner, allowing more room for interpretation in line with the research objective. This also includes greater consideration of the connections between the categories.

Comment 9: The three portraits are engaging and illustrate key findings effectively; however, their integration into the broader argument could be improved, as they currently read as parallel narratives rather than as embedded analytical exemplars.

Response 9: The portraits have been revised accordingly to clarify the contrast between them and enable greater analytical depth by integrating them into broader argument.

Comment 10: In terms of writing, the English is generally understandable but would benefit from language polishing to improve precision, fluency, and cohesion. Some sentences are overly long or repetitive, and certain concepts (e.g., “sportivity,” “objectifying perspectives”) would be clearer with more consistent phrasing. A professional language edit by a native or near-native academic speaker is recommended to ensure clarity and stylistic consistency throughout.

Response 10: The whole document was edited by a professional language expert. For a higher readability, we revised the whole document without track-changes, but we can provide every stylistic change and regarding the language if needed.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my satisfaction with the revised version of the manuscript. The authors clearly made a substantial effort to address the comments and recommendations provided in the previous review round. The revisions strengthened the conceptual clarity, improved the methodological transparency, and enhanced the overall coherence of the paper. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback, we appreciate your valuable time in checking back on our manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing all the suggestions so thoroughly. The manuscript has been significantly improved in terms of clarity, coherence, and rigor. The revisions strengthen both the theoretical framework and the presentation and interpretation of the results. Excellent work, and many thanks for your dedication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback, we appreciate your valuable time in checking back on our manuscript.