The Role of Sport in Physical Education in Finland and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq—Primary School Teachers’ Reflections

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores physical education teachers’ perceptions of the role of sport in primary schools across two national contexts: Finland and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). The study addresses a relevant and timely topic, particularly in the context of cross-cultural curriculum implementation and pedagogical practices.

Given the importance of the topic and the potential contribution of this work, I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript to improve structural consistency and methodological transparency. I hope the detailed comments provided below will support the authors in strengthening the paper for future resubmission:

Comment 1:

The current title: The Role of Sports in Physical Education in Finland and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq - Teacher Reflection does not accurately reflect the actual scope of the study. As the research focuses on primary school physical education teachers (for 5th grade students), the absence of this detail in the title could lead to a misinterpretation that the findings apply across multiple educational levels, including secondary education.

To enhance precision and consistency with the study’s design, it is recommended that the title reference the primary school context.

Comment 2:

Although the study provides detailed information about the participants, it does not explain why the focus was placed specifically on physical education teachers for fifth-grade students. Given that primary education typically includes multiple grade levels, please provide a brief clarification of this choice.

Comment 3:

Although the manuscript states that relevant ethical guidelines (e.g., the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, the University of Duhok, and the Declaration of Helsinki) were followed, it does not specify whether the study received formal ethical approval from an ethics committee. Please provide the name of the approving institution and the corresponding approval reference number.

Comment 4:

The process of verifying the clarity and relevance of the interview questions lacks sufficient detail. It is unclear what specific criteria were used to determine that a question “seemed relevant.” To enhance methodological transparency and rigor, please briefly explain how the clarity and relevance of the questions were assessed and what aspects of the questions were evaluated or revised during the pilot phase.

Comment 5:

The Analyses section includes several statements that describe results, such as the emergence of key themes and the classification of participant responses. While this information is important, it would be more appropriately presented in the Results section.

Comment 6:

The study reports an equal number of themes (four) for each group of teachers. However, the authors did not explain whether this symmetry originated from the data itself or was deliberately designed for comparison purposes. Please clarify how many themes were initially generated for each group, whether any themes were excluded or merged during the analysis, and what rationale, if any, supported the alignment in theme count between the two groups.

Comment 7:

The Results section would benefit from an overview paragraph summarizing the thematic structure derived from the data.

Comment 8:

There is a structural inconsistency in the numbering of the manuscript sections. Specifically, the Results section is labeled as Section 3 following Section 4 (Method), and the Discussion then jumps to Section 6. To maintain clarity and professional presentation, the authors should revise all section headings to ensure sequential numbering throughout the manuscript.

Comment 9:

The comparative analysis between Finnish and KRI teachers currently appears as a standalone section outside the Discussion. It would be more appropriate to integrate it into the Discussion as a dedicated subsection (e.g., “4.1 Comparing the Finnish and KRI Teachers’ Reflections”).

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment: This manuscript explores physical education teachers’ perceptions of the role of sport in primary schools across two national contexts: Finland and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). The study addresses a relevant and timely topic, particularly in the context of cross-cultural curriculum implementation and pedagogical practices.

Response: Thank you very much!

 

Given the importance of the topic and the potential contribution of this work, I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript to improve structural consistency and methodological transparency. I hope the detailed comments provided below will support the authors in strengthening the paper for future resubmission:

Response: Thank you very much for your comments related to improving the quality of the article.

 

Comment 1:

The current title: The Role of Sports in Physical Education in Finland and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq - Teacher Reflection does not accurately reflect the actual scope of the study. As the research focuses on primary school physical education teachers (for 5th grade students), the absence of this detail in the title could lead to a misinterpretation that the findings apply across multiple educational levels, including secondary education.

Response: The interview questions weren’t specified to concern the 5th grade PE, rather PE in general. Thank you for your suggestion to clarify the context in the title.

 

To enhance precision and consistency with the study’s design, it is recommended that the title reference the primary school context.

Response:  The title was edited to refer to primary school teachers’ reflections.

 

Comment 2:

Although the study provides detailed information about the participants, it does not explain why the focus was placed specifically on physical education teachers for fifth-grade students. Given that primary education typically includes multiple grade levels, please provide a brief clarification of this choice.

Response: The selection of fifth-grade teachers is justified in Description of Participants section.

 

Comment 3:

Although the manuscript states that relevant ethical guidelines (e.g., the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, the University of Duhok, and the Declaration of Helsinki) were followed, it does not specify whether the study received formal ethical approval from an ethics committee. Please provide the name of the approving institution and the corresponding approval reference number.

Response: The research procedure and interview data from adult volunteer participants didn’t meet the criteria of the ethical review (National Board on Research Integrity, 2019). This added to the end of the Design section.

 

Comment 4:

The process of verifying the clarity and relevance of the interview questions lacks sufficient detail. It is unclear what specific criteria were used to determine that a question “seemed relevant.” To enhance methodological transparency and rigor, please briefly explain how the clarity and relevance of the questions were assessed and what aspects of the questions were evaluated or revised during the pilot phase.

Response: Added more detailed explanation of the developing interview guide Procedures section.

 

Comment 5:

The Analyses section includes several statements that describe results, such as the emergence of key themes and the classification of participant responses. While this information is important, it would be more appropriately presented in the Results section.

Response: This information is transferred to the beginning of the Results section.

 

Comment 6:

The study reports an equal number of themes (four) for each group of teachers. However, the authors did not explain whether this symmetry originated from the data itself or was deliberately designed for comparison purposes. Please clarify how many themes were initially generated for each group, whether any themes were excluded or merged during the analysis, and what rationale, if any, supported the alignment in theme count between the two groups.

Response: The analysis process and forming the final categories are described more deeply at the end of the Analyses section.  Also the tables of the progress of analysis are added.

 

Comment 7

The Results section would benefit from an overview paragraph summarizing the thematic structure derived from the data.

Response: Added a summarizing paragraph in the beginning of the Results section.

 

Comment 8:

There is a structural inconsistency in the numbering of the manuscript sections. Specifically, the Results section is labeled as Section 3 following Section 4 (Method), and the Discussion then jumps to Section 6. To maintain clarity and professional presentation, the authors should revise all section headings to ensure sequential numbering throughout the manuscript.

Response: The numbers of the sections have been corrected.

 

Comment 9:

The comparative analysis between Finnish and KRI teachers currently appears as a standalone section outside the Discussion. It would be more appropriate to integrate it into the Discussion as a dedicated subsection (e.g., “4.1 Comparing the Finnish and KRI Teachers’ Reflections”).

Response: The structure of Discussion is renewed and done without headings.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary Evaluation:
The manuscript is solid, original, and highly relevant. However, it requires specific improvements in the theoretical framework, in the critical analysis of the KRI case, and in the development of the comparative discussion. While no structural changes are necessary, the paper would benefit from strengthened conceptual and argumentative depth in order to meet international academic standards.

Abstract
The abstract effectively presents the main findings. However, it would be beneficial to briefly mention the methodological approach (e.g., “qualitative study”) to contextualise the nature and scope of the research.

Introduction and Theoretical Framework

• The manuscript would be enriched by a deeper reflection on the relevance of comparing two such distinct contexts. What specific insights are expected from contrasting a highly structured normative system (Finland) with one lacking a formal curriculum (KRI)?

• The absence of a national PE curriculum in KRI should not only be presented as a limitation, but also as a potential space for teacher agency and innovation. This conceptual lens could add depth to the theoretical framing.

Methodology

• There is an apparent contradiction between the terms “strategic selection” and “random selection” (lines 220–223). These are methodologically distinct approaches. The authors should clarify which sampling strategy was actually used.

• It would also strengthen the rigour of the analysis to include whether any inter-coder reliability checks or cross-validation processes were conducted during the thematic coding phase.

Results
The results section is clearly structured and well-developed. No substantial improvements are necessary.

Discussion

• A more in-depth reflection is recommended regarding why, in the absence of a national curriculum, KRI teachers nevertheless share a homogenous, sport-focused perspective. Is this driven by their initial teacher education?

• The discussion would benefit from references to comparable studies conducted in other regions, such as Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa or Central Asia, to provide broader international context and relevance.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Summary Evaluation:
The manuscript is solid, original, and highly relevant. However, it requires specific improvements in the theoretical framework, in the critical analysis of the KRI case, and in the development of the comparative discussion. While no structural changes are necessary, the paper would benefit from strengthened conceptual and argumentative depth in order to meet international academic standards.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments related to improving the quality of the article.

 

 

Abstract
The abstract effectively presents the main findings. However, it would be beneficial to briefly mention the methodological approach (e.g., “qualitative study”) to contextualise the nature and scope of the research.

Response: Added methodological approach to the Abstract.

 

Introduction and Theoretical Framework

The manuscript would be enriched by a deeper reflection on the relevance of comparing two such distinct contexts. What specific insights are expected from contrasting a highly structured normative system (Finland) with one lacking a formal curriculum (KRI)?

Response: Added earlier findings of the differences in PE between different regions and countries that could be expected from comparative design. Also specified the significance of PE curriculum/not to have PE curriculum to the teachers work.  

 

The absence of a national PE curriculum in KRI should not only be presented as a limitation, but also as a potential space for teacher agency and innovation. This conceptual lens could add depth to the theoretical framing.

Response: This view was added to the literature review.

 

Methodology

There is an apparent contradiction between the terms “strategic selection” and “random selection” (lines 220–223). These are methodologically distinct approaches. The authors should clarify which sampling strategy was actually used.

Response: Strategic selection was used. Corrected.

 

It would also strengthen the rigour of the analysis to include whether any inter-coder reliability checks or cross-validation processes were conducted during the thematic coding phase.

Response: The analysis and coding process in the research group is detailed at the end of the Analysis section.  Also the tables of the progress of analysis are added.

 

Results
The results section is clearly structured and well-developed. No substantial improvements are necessary.

Response: Thank you very much!

 

Discussion

A more in-depth reflection is recommended regarding why, in the absence of a national curriculum, KRI teachers nevertheless share a homogenous, sport-focused perspective. Is this driven by their initial teacher education?

The discussion would benefit from references to comparable studies conducted in other regions, such as Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa or Central Asia, to provide broader international context and relevance.

Response: The structure of discussion and conclusion has been renewed and added more in-depth reflection including KRI teachers homogenous sport-focused perspective. Also the findings from earlier studies comparing teachers from different regions are included.

 

The Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) has undertaken significant educational reforms since 2007, including the modernization of its curriculum across all subjects, with physical education (PE) recognized as an important component of the basic education system (Grades 1–9). However, the implementation and standardization of a PE curriculum specifically for primary schools present a nuanced picture.Despite the broad curriculum reform, there is evidence that a standardized, detailed PE curriculum sanctioned by the Ministry of Education (MoE) is conspicuously absent for primary schools in the KRI. This means that while PE is included as a subject, the specifics of what is taught and how it is delivered may vary significantly between schools.PE in KRI primary schools is predominantly focused on sport activities such as Taekwondo, volleyball, basketball, soccer, swimming, and athletics.

Why? if you read the webpages of the college, you can see the emphasis on sport and fitness

The predominance of a sport-centered outlook among physical education teachers in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq can be traced back to the structure and content of their initial teacher education. Most PE teachers in the region are trained in specialized colleges and university departments that concentrate on physical education and sport sciences. These programs are designed with a strong emphasis on sports instruction, coaching techniques, and active participation in a range of sports such as basketball, volleyball, football, handball, athletics, swimming, and gymnastics. As a result, the curriculum is deeply rooted in sports performance and physical training, which shapes teachers’ professional identities to prioritize sport-based activities. This focus often comes at the expense of broader approaches to health or movement education, reinforcing a uniform perspective that values competitive and skill-based sports above other dimensions of physical education.

University of Sulaimani. (n.d.). Physical Education – College of Physical Education and Sport Science. Retrieved June 11, 2025, from https://pess.univsul.edu.iq/departments/physical-education/

https://main.soran.edu.iq/faculties-centre/education/physical-edu

https://web.uoz.edu.krd/foe/departments/Department-of-Physical-Education/

https://pess.univsul.edu.iq/departments/physical-education/

https://pess.univsul.edu.iq/departments/basic-physical-education/

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your submission. The article addresses a relevant and underexplored topic by comparing physical education (PE) teachers’ perceptions in Finland and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). However, the manuscript requires substantial revisions to meet the standards of academic rigor, clarity, and coherence expected in scholarly publications. Below are detailed comments and suggestions for improvement:

1. Abstract and Keywords

• The abstract does not adequately reflect the depth and scope of the study. While it follows a conventional structure, it lacks theoretical grounding, fails to articulate the study’s originality, and omits key methodological limitations. It reads more like a summary of findings than a scientific abstract.
• The abstract should briefly contextualize the study within relevant theoretical frameworks and highlight its contribution to comparative education or physical education research.
• The keywords “Finland” and “Kurdistan Region of Iraq” should be reconsidered. While the regional focus is important, these terms are not conceptually informative. It is recommended to consult controlled vocabularies or thesauri (e.g., ERIC, UNESCO) to select more appropriate descriptors such as “comparative education,” “physical education curriculum,” or “teacher perceptions.”

2. Introduction and Theoretical Framing

• The introduction is well-developed and informative, offering a rich contextual background. However, the theoretical framework is fragmented across three sections: Introduction, Theoretical View, and Earlier Research. This structure leads to redundancy and dilutes the analytical focus.
• The theoretical discussion, particularly the use of Kirk’s (2010) concept of “physical education as sport techniques,” should be integrated earlier and more coherently. The current structure repeats the same critique of sport-centered PE without advancing the argument.
• The literature review should move beyond description and engage critically with the cited works. For example, the persistence of sport-centric models in PE could be problematized in light of institutional inertia, teacher identity, or sociocultural expectations.

3. Methodology

The methodological section is one of the weakest parts of the manuscript and must be significantly improved:

• Design Justification: The choice of a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach is not justified. The authors should explain why this approach is suitable for a comparative study and how it aligns with the research questions.
• Conceptual Clarity: Key constructs such as “reflection,” “attitudes,” and “perceptions” are not operationalized. This undermines the transparency and replicability of the study.
• Video Stimuli: The use of video-stimulated interviews is innovative, but the rationale for selecting only two videos per country is unclear. The editing process (from 70–90 minutes to 10–15 minutes) may introduce interpretive bias, which is not acknowledged.
• Sample Limitations: The sample size (14 teachers) is small and unbalanced. The authors should discuss the implications of this limitation and clarify how diversity (beyond gender and experience) was ensured.
• Cross-cultural Validity: The study involves multilingual interviews and culturally distinct contexts, yet there is no discussion of how translation, interpretation, or cultural nuances were addressed.
• NVivo Use: The use of NVivo is mentioned but not justified. The authors should explain how NVivo enhanced the analysis and include a visual representation (e.g., a thematic map or inter-category diagram) to illustrate the coding structure.

4. Results and Discussion

• The results are presented thematically but lack analytical depth. The discussion section largely reiterates the findings without critically engaging with them.
• There is a confusion between discussion and conclusion: the section reads as a descriptive summary rather than a space for interpretation, theoretical integration, or critical reflection.
• The discussion fails to explore the implications of the findings for curriculum development, teacher education, or educational policy.
• Theoretical references (e.g., Kirk, Deci & Ryan) are cited but not used to generate new insights or challenge existing assumptions.
• The authors do not acknowledge the study’s limitations (e.g., sample size, cultural bias, methodological constraints), which is essential for transparency and academic integrity.

5. Language and Style

• While generally understandable, the English is at times repetitive, informal, and imprecise. Phrases such as “sport raising one’s status” or “PE is not only about sport” should be rephrased using more academic and conceptually robust language.
• Redundancies should be eliminated, and the narrative should be made more concise and fluid.

Summary of Key Recommendations

• Revise the abstract to include theoretical context, methodological limitations, and the study’s contribution.
• Replace or refine keywords using controlled vocabularies.
• Integrate the theoretical framework into the introduction and avoid redundancy.
• Justify the methodological choices and address limitations explicitly.
• Deepen the analysis in the discussion section and clearly distinguish it from the results.
• Improve the academic tone and clarity of the language throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Thank you for your submission. The article addresses a relevant and underexplored topic by comparing physical education (PE) teachers’ perceptions in Finland and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). However, the manuscript requires substantial revisions to meet the standards of academic rigor, clarity, and coherence expected in scholarly publications. Below are detailed comments and suggestions for improvement:

Response: Thank you very much for your comments related to improving the quality of the article.

 

 

1. Abstract and Keywords

The abstract does not adequately reflect the depth and scope of the study. While it follows a conventional structure, it lacks theoretical grounding, fails to articulate the study’s originality, and omits key methodological limitations. It reads more like a summary of findings than a scientific abstract.

Response: The scope and theoretical view of the study is included in the Abstract.

 

The abstract should briefly contextualize the study within relevant theoretical frameworks and highlight its contribution to comparative education or physical education research.

Response: The article uses Kirks’s (2010) conceptualization of the role of sport in PE. Theoretical framework and contribution to comparative education of PE research are added to the abstract.

 

The keywords “Finland” and “Kurdistan Region of Iraq” should be reconsidered. While the regional focus is important, these terms are not conceptually informative. It is recommended to consult controlled vocabularies or thesauri (e.g., ERIC, UNESCO) to select more appropriate descriptors such as “comparative education,” “physical education curriculum,” or “teacher perceptions.”

Response: The keywords are changed.

 

1. Introduction and Theoretical Framing

The introduction is well-developed and informative, offering a rich contextual background. However, the theoretical framework is fragmented across three sections: Introduction, Theoretical View, and Earlier Research. This structure leads to redundancy and dilutes the analytical focus.

Response: Edited as proposed.

 

The theoretical discussion, particularly the use of Kirk’s (2010) concept of “physical education as sport techniques,” should be integrated earlier and more coherently. The current structure repeats the same critique of sport-centered PE without advancing the argument.

Response: The theme “Role of sport in PE” was found inductively when analysing teachers’ interviews. The Kirk’s (2010) concept was used more as a theoretical lens to examine and compare Finnish and KRI teachers’ reflections rather than develop the concept “physical education as sport techniques” further.

 

The literature review should move beyond description and engage critically with the cited works. For example, the persistence of sport-centric models in PE could be problematized in light of institutional inertia, teacher identity, or sociocultural expectations.

Response: PE teacher education, teacher identity and sociocultural expectations related to sport focused teaching are addressed more deeply in Instruction section.

 

1. Methodology

The methodological section is one of the weakest parts of the manuscript and must be significantly improved:

Response: Methodology section is improved

 

Design Justification: The choice of a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach is not justified. The authors should explain why this approach is suitable for a comparative study and how it aligns with the research questions.

Response: The article is rewritten, and the choice of a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach is justified.

 

Conceptual Clarity: Key constructs such as “reflection,” “attitudes,” and “perceptions” are not operationalized. This undermines the transparency and replicability of the study.

Response: The article is rewritten

 

Video Stimuli: The use of video-stimulated interviews is innovative, but the rationale for selecting only two videos per country is unclear. The editing process (from 70–90 minutes to 10–15 minutes) may introduce interpretive bias, which is not acknowledged.

Response: We had very limited funding to make and edit videos with professional videographers. Also, the process of getting permission from students’ parents to record videos was very difficult and took months. Finally, the research group decided to make two videos representing typical fifth-grade indoor and outdoor PE classes in both regions. The aim of the videos was to stimulate reflection, not to show what the PE in the other region is all about. In those videos there was much repeating the same activity (e.g. playing games) for a long time without new information. Therefore, videos were edited shorter to show all the essential parts of the teaching-learning process. 10-15min length of videos was also more suitable for interview situations to keep interviewees concentrated. The use of edited videos is justified in the Design section.

 

Sample Limitations: The sample size (14 teachers) is small and unbalanced. The authors should discuss the implications of this limitation and clarify how diversity (beyond gender and experience) was ensured.

Response: The sample size is quite large for a qualitative in-depth interview study. GOLALEH

 

Cross-cultural Validity: The study involves multilingual interviews and culturally distinct contexts, yet there is no discussion of how translation, interpretation, or cultural nuances were addressed.

Response: Cultural and linguistic aspects are addressed in the Analyses section and discussed more critically in Strength and limitations section.

 

NVivo Use: The use of NVivo is mentioned but not justified. The authors should explain how NVivo enhanced the analysis and include a visual representation (e.g., a thematic map or inter-category diagram) to illustrate the coding structure.

Response: The article is rewritten, and the use of NVivo is justified. A visual explanation of the coding structure is included in a table.

1. Results and Discussion

The results are presented thematically but lack analytical depth. The discussion section largely reiterates the findings without critically engaging them.

Response: The Results section presents the data-driven findings separately for the Finnish and KRI teacher groups, without comparing the groups or engaging with the literature. The Discussion section begins with a summary of the key findings. Comparative analyses between the reflections of Finnish and KRI teachers, along with discussions of relevant literature and findings related to the study’s theoretical framework, are presented in the Discussion.

 

There is a confusion between discussion and conclusion: the section reads as a descriptive summary rather than a space for interpretation, theoretical integration, or critical reflection.

Response: The structure of discussion and conclusion has been renewed.

 

The discussion fails to explore the implications of the findings for curriculum development, teacher education, or educational policy.

Response: The critical reflection on findings has been deepened.

 

Theoretical references (e.g., Kirk, Deci & Ryan) are cited but not used to generate new insights or challenge existing assumptions.

Response: The theme “Role of sport in PE” was found inductively when analysing teachers’ interviews. The Kirk’s (2010) concept was used more as a theoretical lens to examine and compare Finnish and KRI teachers’ reflections rather than develop the concept “physical education as sport techniques” further. The implications for self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan) was also found inductively in Finnish teachers’ reflection. Theory was used to find differences between Finnish and KRI teachers' reflections. Also, the note that theory was used as a background when creating the current Finnish national PE curriculum in basic education, was added.

 

The authors do not acknowledge the study’s limitations (e.g., sample size, cultural bias, methodological constraints), which is essential for transparency and academic integrity.

Response: These are already discussed in the Strength and limitations section. However, these are addressed more deeply.

 

1. Language and Style

While generally understandable, the English is at times repetitive, informal, and imprecise. Phrases such as “sport raising one’s status” or “PE is not only about sport” should be rephrased using more academic and conceptually robust language.

Response: The phrases such as “sport raising one’s status” or “PE is not only about sport” come up from the interview data and were used to describe reflections more authentically. The language has been developed.

 

Redundancies should be eliminated, and the narrative should be made more concise and fluid.

Response: The structure of Discussion and Conclusion sections have been renewed for a better narrative.

 

Summary of Key Recommendations

Revise the abstract to include theoretical context, methodological limitations, and the study’s contribution.

Response: Scope, theoretical view and contribution of study are included in abstract. Methodological limitations are more deeply discussed in the Strength and limitations section.

 

Replace or refine keywords using controlled vocabulary.

Response: Done according to the reviewer's recommendation.

 

Integrate the theoretical framework into the introduction and avoid redundancy.

Response: Introduction section has been developed.

 

Justify the methodological choices and address limitations explicitly.

Response: Done according to the reviewer's recommendation.

 

Deepen the analysis in the discussion section and clearly distinguish it from the results.

Response: Done according to the reviewer's recommendation.

 

Improve the academic tone and clarity of the language throughout the manuscript.

Response: The structure and narrative have been developed.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate your detailed responses to the comments raised during the first round of review. The clarifications provided have satisfactorily addressed my concerns.

I have no further questions or suggestions. I recommend proceeding with the editorial decision.

Author Response

Thank you very much!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows meaningful improvements in several key areas, particularly in the justification of the methodological approach, the integration of theoretical frameworks, and the restructuring of the discussion and conclusion sections. The clarification of the phenomenological-hermeneutic design and the operationalization of key constructs such as “reflection,” “attitudes,” and “perceptions” are welcome additions that enhance conceptual clarity.

The explanation regarding the use of video-stimulated interviews is now more transparent and contextually justified, although the limitations introduced by video editing and selection should be acknowledged more explicitly in the methodology or limitations section. The justification for the sample size is reasonable for a qualitative study, but further elaboration on how diversity beyond gender and experience was ensured would strengthen the credibility of the findings.

The discussion section has improved in analytical depth and theoretical engagement, particularly through the use of Kirk’s (2010) framework and self-determination theory. However, there is still room to further sharpen the interpretive lens and, mainly, reduce redundancy. The distinction between results and discussion is now clearer, and the implications for curriculum development and teacher education are more thoroughly addressed.
It is important to note that the recommended revisions were not intended to result in the indiscriminate addition of text. Rather, they aimed to promote a more integrated and conceptually cohesive narrative—particularly in the discussion and conclusion sections. We encourage the authors to undertake a reflective synthesis of the revised content, ensuring that the manuscript remains concise, avoids redundancy, and maintains a clear analytical focus. Likewise, reference 84, which has been added, should be reviewed

Overall, the revisions are substantial and appreciated. With minor refinements in clarity, conciseness, and critical framing, the manuscript will be significantly strengthened.

Author Response

Reviewers comments and authors response - round 2

 

The revised manuscript shows meaningful improvements in several key areas, particularly in the justification of the methodological approach, the integration of theoretical frameworks, and the restructuring of the discussion and conclusion sections. The clarification of the phenomenological-hermeneutic design and the operationalization of key constructs such as "reflection," "attitudes," and "perceptions" are welcome additions that enhance conceptual clarity.

Response: Thank you very much

The explanation regarding the use of video-stimulated interviews is now more transparent and contextually justified, although the limitations introduced by video editing and selection should be acknowledged more explicitly in the methodology or limitations section.

Response: Thank you very much. These limitations are now highlighted in the limitation section.

 

The justification for the sample size is reasonable for a qualitative study, but further elaboration on how diversity beyond gender and experience was ensured would strengthen the credibility of the findings.

Response: In both regions, participants were evenly divided between male and female teachers. Teaching experience was also taken into account to ensure a diverse range of professional backgrounds. Suitable participants were identified through local PE teacher networks. These details are provided in the 'Description of Participants' section. Gender division and teaching experience are also discussed in the ‘Strength and Limitations’ section. Other gender identities were not included in the study due to the sensitivity surrounding gender issues in the KRI context.

 

The discussion section has improved in analytical depth and theoretical engagement, particularly through the use of Kirk's (2010) framework and self-determination theory. However, there is still room to further sharpen the interpretive lens and, mainly, reduce redundancy. The distinction between results and discussion is now clearer, and the implications for curriculum development and teacher education are more thoroughly addressed.

Response: The discussion section has been sharpened and edited to reduce redundancy.

It is important to note that the recommended revisions were not intended to result in the indiscriminate addition of text. Rather, they aimed to promote a more integrated and conceptually cohesive narrative-particularly in the discussion and conclusion sections. We encourage the authors to undertake a reflective synthesis of the revised content, ensuring that the manuscript remains concise, avoids redundancy, and maintains a clear analytical focus. Likewise, reference 84, which has been added, should be reviewed.

Response: The reference is deleted because it was not used within the article.

Overall, the revisions are substantial and appreciated. With minor refinements in clarity, conciseness, and critical framing, the manuscript will be significantly strengthened.

Response: Thank you very much. The article is rewritten according to all of the reviewers’ comments.