Empowering Youth Through the Power of Reflective Journaling: Understanding Life Skills from the Reflections of Youth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting this thoughtful and well-constructed manuscript. Your work offers a rich and engaging exploration of youth voice and experience in the context of a sport-based positive youth development (PYD) program. The inclusion of children’s reflections—through both text and illustrations—adds valuable depth and authenticity to the study. The manuscript highlights some interesting insights into how youth internalize and apply social-emotional skills learned through structured sport experiences.

The manuscript’s strength lies in its clear connection to a meaningful program (LiFEsports), the use of direct participant expression, and the effort to center the voices of youth who are often underrepresented in the literature. Your positionality as authors and your long-term engagement with the program offer a valuable lens that can enhance interpretation.

That said, there are several key areas where refinement could strengthen the manuscript and its contribution to the field:

The central question—“Do journals matter?”—is overly vague and open to multiple interpretations. It’s important to clarify what “matter” means in the context of your research. Are you investigating the role of journaling in promoting learning, skill transfer, program enjoyment, or long-term behavioral change? A clearer articulation of your primary aim would guide the reader through your analytical approach and conclusions with greater clarity.

The authors need to refine the research question to focus on a specific outcome (e.g., “What role does reflective journaling play in facilitating the transfer of social-emotional learning in sport-based PYD programs?”).

The data used in the study are from 2017, which is now over eight years old. While the content potentially remains rich, it is important to address the age of the data. The social context for youth has changed significantly in recent years (e.g., pandemic, digital media shifts), and acknowledging this context is essential. The authors should include a brief discussion justifying the continued relevance of the dataset, or note how recent data collection could support future study replication or expansion.

There is a discrepancy in the sample size reported: 234 journals are said to be analyzed, but the results mention 235 youth. This needs to be clarified to ensure transparency and rigor. Provide a consistent and accurate explanation of how the final sample size was determined.

The analysis section does not clearly describe the theoretical or conceptual framework guiding your coding and interpretation. The authors need to ground the analysis in an established theory, and describe how this guided the thematic coding. Clarify what you were looking for in the journals and how themes were determined to “matter.”

On page 6, you state that journals were examined for “impacts.” However, “impact” is never clearly defined or operationalized. This is a critical issue, as the conclusions are built on identifying these so-called impacts. Moving forward, the authors need to define what qualifies as an “impact” in this context. How were such impacts identified, coded, and differentiated from general engagement or participation?

The discussion frequently implies that journaling led to learning or skill transfer. However, the design does not appear to allow for claims of causality or even strong correlation. For example, the claim on page 14 (lines 497–499) that “reflection is the catalyst for lifelong learning” is not supported by evidence from the current dataset. Similarly, citing a single example of a child applying a skill does not constitute evidence of learning transfer or long-term behavioral change.

To address, the authors should reframe such claims more cautiously, or better yet, bolster your discussion by specifying that these are hypotheses or early signals of transfer that warrant further investigation.

A critical question the paper raises (but does not fully address) is: What constitutes transfer or application of learning? Reflecting on content in a journal, especially as a required activity, does not inherently demonstrate learning or behavioral change. Could you consider incorporating a discussion of what constitutes “transfer” and whether the journal prompts were designed to elicit evidence of this?  Also, you might consider longitudinal follow-up or mixed-methods approaches to triangulate behavioral outcomes.

A few journal examples (especially in a compulsory journal exercise) are used to support sweeping claims about the efficacy of the program or the journaling process. While these are surface-level compelling, isolated quotes should not be overinterpreted as conclusive evidence of broader program impact.

This study has interesting data from kids. However, the lack of theoretical framing, clear research question, and clarity in the coding/thematic process ultimately hinder the insights that can be gleaned.

Thank you again for your meaningful work and for amplifying the voices of youth. I hope these comments support the continued development and strengthening of your manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached document for feedback and suggestions. Overall, this topic and paper have value. However, I suggest some major revisions, detailed in the document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is much improved. The contextualization of the argument is more clearly and comprehensively articulated. The methods are more robust. The findings are much more robust and contextualized. The discussion is toned down to be more applicable to this study and not so broadly generalized. 

Well done to dig in and really make this a solid study. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am impressed with the undertaking here to address comments from both reviewers. Well done.