Exploring Skills in Observing Teaching Competency through Video Evaluation of Class Demonstrations by Pre-Service Physical Education Teachers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

                                    Reviewer's Comments

                                              01-09-2023

1-In the manuscript, the authors mentioned the sample size is 21 in total. How did the authors justify this sample size? If the authors did not know how to do this, please refer to this resource at https://www.scalestatistics.com/sample-size-for-mann-whitney-u.html for reference.

2-For Mann-Whitney U test, one of the important things that the author should report is missing—Check if the data are assumed to be similar in shape across the two groups. You can refer to the resource at https://campusguides.lib.utah.edu/c.php?g=160832&p=6707563 for reference.

3-What sampling method did the authors use in the current study?

4-The authors should further clarify if there are incentives provided to the participants in the manuscript, if applicable.

5-Describe the measurement/rating process (e.g., time interval between repeated measurement process).

6-Describe the sample characteristics of raters. (e.g., training or experience)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report--Sustainability-2165613-peer-review-v1 

The importance of pre-service physical education is evident and continuous and in-depth research on it is necessary. The purposes of this manuscript are relatively clear, and the authors have also adopted more appropriate methods and paths. 

Comments and Suggestions

1.  The correlation between this research and sustainability is not very obvious, it is more of a topic of educational methods and policies.

2.   In the abstract, the authors mention the theories based on Schon. If so, where are the contributions of the authors? These may exist, but the authors may need to adjust their arguments. For example, the authors applied this scholar’s findings and found new results based on them.

3.   In the first chapter, when reviewing the existing research results, the authors should further examine the rationality and logical relationship of the discussion. For example, why are some references not more adequately commented upon when they are first mentioned? Was it suddenly mentioned again in the subsequent discourse? Additionally, evaluation criteria may be more appropriate to the methodology of the study. The content here is not an evaluation criterion, they are more like hypotheses based on research purposes.

4.   In chapter five (and it should be chapter four), the author's discussion and analysis of the findings, although more in-depth, seem to be a re-proof of existing research, which can easily reduce the contribution of this paper. Quotations from some references may not be necessary. Additionally, we found that the reference numbered 1 is quoted many times, is it important? If it is frequently quoted, then what is the difference between the findings of this manuscript  and it? These deserve reasonable explanations from the authors.

5.   Although the ideas and methods of the study are rigorous, are there any limitations of this study? For example, is the number of respondents too small? Can their feedback be promoted? Simultaneously, the authors make a few suggestions, whether will they encounter resistance in the future implementation process? 

Minor issues

Line 251 & 343: The number of the title is incorrect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulation to the authors of the manuscript.

It can be published after correcting minor errors in English writing.