Unpacking how teacher support enhances learning engagement in physical education: A serial mediation model of academic self-efficacy and task orientation among Chinese college students

Xinjian Xu; Yongneng Tan; Borhannudin bin Abdullah

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0333813

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 17, 2025
5 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor Dear Dr. xu, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 20 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Rogis Baker, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “2025 Integrated Specialized and Innovation Curriculum, Z2025025K; 2025 Integrated Specialized and Innovation Program, Z2025005Z; 2025 University-Level Model Course for Ideological and Political Education, KCSZSFK2519; Undergraduate Teaching Case Repository of Sanming University” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: No comments to the authors. I am not a quantitative researcher, but it appears that your quantitative analysis is well done. The data you provide are sufficient. See responses to questions above. I have no concerns about research ethics or publication ethics. Reviewer #2: In the paper, the theoretical discussion on the mechanism of action is characterized by "being more descriptive than explanatory". It can illustrate the "composition of the mechanism", but fails to deeply unpack the core logic of the serial mediation mechanism and does not fully answer the question of "why the mechanism exists". It is suggested to add in-depth exploration of the model mechanism and analysis of the local context to enhance theoretical explanatory power. However, this is a personal suggestion; if the focus of this paper is only on describing the existence of the mechanism rather than conducting in-depth theoretical analysis, no revision is necessary. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Linda Billings Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333813.r001
Revision 1
9 Sep 2025 Author Response Rebuttal letter Manuscript ID: [PONE-D-25-38320] Title: [Unpacking how teacher support enhances learning engagement in physical education: a serial mediation model of academic self-efficacy and task orientation among Chinese college students] Dear Editor, We thank you and the reviewers for the insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have greatly helped us improve our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and made the corresponding revisions in the manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment. The specific changes are also available in the “Revised manuscript (tracked changes copy)” file. First part, Response Journal Requirements: 1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at Response: We sincerely thank the Editor for reminding us to carefully check the manuscript against the PLOS ONE style requirements. We have revised the manuscript text, tables, and figures according to the formatting guidelines, and ensured compliance with the journal’s file naming conventions. Regarding the in-text citation style, our manuscript currently uses parentheses “( )” instead of brackets “[ ]”. This formatting arises from the citation style settings in our reference management software (EndNote), which cannot be fully converted into bracket style in our local environment. We kindly request the editorial office to assist in converting the parentheses into brackets at the production stage. If required, we are willing to provide the complete reference library file (EndNote) to facilitate this process. We hope this explanation is acceptable, and we confirm that apart from this point, all other aspects of the manuscript formatting now conform to PLOS ONE requirements. 2/3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: We thank the Editor for pointing out the inconsistency between the Funding Information and Financial Disclosure sections. We have carefully revised these sections to ensure that the grant numbers and funding details are now consistent. In addition, we have removed the conflicting statement from the manuscript and clarified the corrected funding information in the cover letter. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. Response: We would like to clarify the Data Availability Statement. The datasets are already publicly accessible in the Figshare repository (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30084220), as stated in the manuscript. The earlier discrepancy arose because we mistakenly selected the “available upon acceptance” option in the submission system. This has been corrected in the resubmission, and the information is now consistent across both the manuscript and the submission form. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. Response: We confirm that the ethics statement has been retained only in the Methods section. Any duplicate statements appearing elsewhere in the manuscript have been removed to ensure consistency with the journal’s requirements. 6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Response: Neither Reviewer #1 nor Reviewer #2 requested citation of any specific published works. We have carefully re-checked their comments and confirmed that no additional references were suggested. Therefore, no changes were made to the reference list in this regard. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: We have carefully reviewed our entire reference list and confirm that none of the cited papers have been retracted. Therefore, no changes were required in this regard. The second part: Response Reviewer's Questions Response to Reviewer 1: We sincerely thank Reviewer #1 for the positive evaluation of our study, including the acknowledgment that the quantitative analysis is well conducted and the data provided are sufficient. Response to Reviewer 2: We greatly appreciate Reviewer #2’s thoughtful comments regarding the theoretical discussion. We agree that the serial mediation mechanism could benefit from deeper theoretical unpacking. Our study was primarily designed as a cross-sectional correlational investigation. Given the broad scope and large, diverse sample, it was not feasible to implement causal comparisons or longitudinal control. Therefore, the focus of this manuscript is to examine the associations among teacher support, academic self-efficacy, sport task orientation, and physical education learning engagement rather than to establish causal effects. Nevertheless, we found the reviewer’s suggestion very valuable. In response, we have revised the Discussion section to provide stronger theoretical grounding and explanatory depth. A: added clarifying sentences in the Discussion section to strengthen the explanation of the mechanism and highlight the local educational context; B: clarified in the rebuttal that the main focus of this paper is to demonstrate the existence and structure of the mechanism rather than to develop an extended theoretical model. Specifically, we analyzed the mechanism from two theoretical perspectives—Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) combined with Achievement Motivation Theory (AMT)—to clarify why teacher support enhances academic self-efficacy and task orientation, which in turn foster learning engagement. These additions strengthen the theoretical basis of our model and enhance the explanatory power of the findings while remaining consistent with the scope of the study. The specific revision process is as follows� 1.line 419-422 (Track Changes): add, This suggests that teacher support first strengthens students’ academic confidence, and this confidence motivates them to adopt a mastery-focused task orientation. Such task orientation channels self-belief into sustained effort, ultimately leading to greater PELE. Statement: In the Interpretation of findings, add the logical chain explaining why ASE → STO → PELE. 2.line 456-460 (Track Changes): Together, these perspectives explain the sequential pathway: SDT highlights that teacher support satisfies basic needs and builds ASE; SCT emphasizes that ASE enhances students’ motivation to persist; AMT clarifies how STO transforms this confidence into mastery-driven engagement. Statement: In the Theoretical implications, add a linked explanation of the three theories rather than listing them separately. 3.line 487-491 (Track Changes): In Chinese universities, PE is often exam-oriented and teacher-centered, which means students rely heavily on teacher encouragement to build ASE. Once this confidence is established, it becomes a key driver for adopting STO, as students gradually shift from compliance to active mastery. Statement: In the Critical analysis, add the unique features of the TS → ASE → STO pathway in the Chinese context. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333813.r002
18 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor Unpacking how teacher support enhances learning engagement in physical education: a serial mediation model of academic self-efficacy and task orientation among Chinese college students PONE-D-25-38320R1 Dear Xu, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Rogis Baker, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333813.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor PONE-D-25-38320R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. xu, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Rogis Baker Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333813.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .