Effects of a School Internship on Situation-Specific Skills for an Inclusive PE—Evaluation of a PETE Concept for Prospective PE Teachers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

• Clarity and development in the introduction: The introduction is well-structured, but some topics could be further developed. Specifically, it would be helpful to elaborate on the relevance of the study within the field of inclusive physical education and how it differs from previous research.
• Competency models: The integrative model by Blömeke et al. (2015) is mentioned as the main reference for understanding teacher competency development. However, is this the only relevant model? It would be advisable to include a broader review of other approaches to teacher competencies in physical education, drawing comparisons and justifying the choice of the integrative model.
• Empirical evidence and specific data: In the section on the effectiveness of school-based practices in teacher education, previous studies are cited, but no concrete examples of data or relevant findings are provided. It is recommended to include specific results from research that has evaluated the impact of these practices, providing figures or cases that reinforce the argumentation.

Method

Congratulations to the authors for the rigorous data analysis. A detailed treatment of the results is observed, which strengthens the study’s conclusions. However, a question arises as to why a repeated measures ANOVA was not conducted to analyze the evolution between T0 and T2. Since this approach allows for the evaluation of changes within the same subjects over time, its inclusion could further strengthen the study’s findings.

Discussion

It is recommended to strengthen the discussion of the results. In particular, the section between lines 481 and 496 lacks citations, which could affect the argument's robustness. To improve this section, it would be valuable to include references that support the claims made and expand the discussion with possible explanations for the findings. Additionally, we suggest comparing the results with previous studies or similar interventions, which would help better contextualize their impact and relevance.

Conclusion

It is recommended to differentiate between theoretical conclusions and practical conclusions. Currently, the article’s conclusions present the obtained results, but they could benefit from a specific section focused on practical implications. This would allow readers—especially teachers, researchers, or policymakers—to better understand how to apply the findings in real-world contexts.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Paper deals with a topic of significant interest for the scientific sector of educational sciences. The research methodology used is appropriate and adequately structured. The results and discussions are significant for the stakeholders of the sector. The bibliography is updated and consistent with the theme covered by the paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your very appreciative feedback!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From the perspective of the subject matter addressed, I believe that the authors have made a positive and valuable contribution to the field, enhancing our understanding of the analyzed topic. However, in my opinion, the paper has some shortcomings that I would like to address, which if resolved would strengthen the paper:

Introduction: In my opinion, the introduction is well articulated and the authors have reviewed  the literature on the development of teachers' knowledge and skills quite well.

However, the literature on motivational-affective prerequisites is not very recent (e.g., in paragraphs Recognition and Individual support, with the exception of Langer et al. 2023) and does not seem to take into account the changes that have occurred with the pandemic, which have challenged teachers' resilience.

I believe that this aspect has changed the concept of adaptation in teaching and that it should be taken into consideration in the theoretical introduction. I suggest the following references, for example:

• Fierro, A. A., Valdés, M. A., de Carvalho, R. S., & Merellano-Navarro, E. (2024). Emotionality in the post-pandemic primary physical education classroom.Retos (53), 608-617.
• Nicolosi, S., Pitrolo, C., & Alba, M. (2023). Physical Education Teaching Strategies in Italian Primary School: Reflections for the Post-pandemic Era. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 23(8), 2212-2219

Abstract and Introduction: Could the authors write out the acronym QiPE in full the first time?

Design and sample: The authors could specify how much time elapsed between t0 t1 and t2?

Test instruments: The scale of Recognition has an internal consistency with a Cronbach alpha = 0.6, which is rather questionable. Instead, the Participation scale is acceptable (alpha: 0.72) and the Individual support scale seems to be more reliable (alpha: 0.81). Could the authors expand on the reasons why they considered the instrument to be reliable and valid as a whole? Stagnation of situation-specific skills could depend on the sensitivity of the instrument's measurement?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx