Promoting Excellence Among Teachers of Science and Technology in the Druze Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents an important and timely investigation into the challenges facing STEM education within the Druze sector in Israel. By combining an extensive literature review with semi-structured interviews involving 25 STEM teachers, the study offers valuable insights into how disparities in infrastructure, professional training, and cultural support affect educational outcomes. The manuscript is well-researched and well-developed. However, it would benefit from the inclusion of several key improvements to enhance its clarity, methodological rigor, and overall impact.

1. Literature:

The literature review provides a detailed and well-organized summary of existing studies. However, the review does not clearly articulate what is missing in prior studies, nor does it sufficiently highlight why this specific study is uniquely needed.

To strengthen the manuscript, it would be useful if the authors provided a clear and concise summary of the research gap at the end of the literature review, before the research questions and hypotheses. This could include:

• What previous studies have overlooked
• Why this study is needed now
• How the current study seeks to fill that gap
• What are the main contributions of this manuscript?

2. Section 3:
3. It would make more sense for Section 3 to be titled “Methodology” or “Research Method” rather than “Research questions and research hypotheses.
4. Remove the subsection 3.2 research questions, from line 299 to line 303, this subsection is repeating line 275 to 280.
5. Sampling: The purposive sampling is reasonable, but
   • more detail on participant demographics (e.g., gender, school location, years of teaching) would strengthen claims of representativeness.
   • It would also be helpful to provide more information on how the eight Druze junior high schools were selected.
   • include a justification for the sample size and address possible limitations in terms of representativeness.

Including these details would increase the study’s methodological rigor and allow for a more informed interpretation of the findings.

The typical structure of a paper includes an introduction, literature review/hypothesis, methodology, findings/results, and conclusion. However, the structure of this paper is somewhat unclear. For instance, when reading the sample, we would expect the data collection details to be presented together, but they are spread across two different sections.

I would like to provide a suggested revised outline for your reference.

3. Methodology

    3.1. Research Aims

    3.2. Participants and Sampling

    3.3. Data Collection Procedures

    3.4. Interview Protocol and Instrumentation

    3.5. Intervention Model Overview (if part of the method)

    3.6. Data Analysis

• Ethical Considerations

 

4. Findings

 The findings section is lengthy and at times repetitive, with some themes reappearing in multiple sub-sections. It would be useful if streamline this section by consolidating overlapping themes and ensuring each paragraph adds unique value to the narrative.

5. Conclusion:

The conclusion section would benefit from the inclusion of a brief discussion of the study's limitations and directions for future research. For example, this study was conducted with a relatively small and localized sample—25 STEM teachers from eight Druze junior high schools in northern Israel—which may not fully capture the diversity of educational experiences across the broader Druze sector. Additionally, the reliance on self-reported interview data may introduce subjective bias, limiting the generalizability of the findings. To enhance the study’s contribution, the authors could recommend future research.

6. Minor issues:

There are several minor typographical errors and awkward phrasings that could benefit from a final language polish. For example, "25teachers from 8Druze schools" should be corrected by adding a space between "25" and "teachers."

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several minor typographical errors and awkward phrasings that could benefit from a final language polish. For example, "25teachers from 8Druze schools" should be corrected by adding a space between "25" and "teachers."

Author Response

Comment 1:

The literature review provides a detailed and well-organized summary of existing studies. However, it does not clearly articulate what is missing in prior studies, nor does it sufficiently highlight why this specific study is uniquely needed. To strengthen the manuscript, it would be useful to provide a clear and concise summary of the research gap at the end of the literature review, before the research questions and hypotheses.

Response:
Thank you for your valuable comment.

In response, we added a new paragraph at the end of the Literature Review section (page 10, lines 283-293), which explicitly summarizes the research gap.

Specifically, we clarified that previous studies have highlighted disparities in STEM education but lacked an in-depth qualitative analysis focused on the Druze sector at the junior high school level. We emphasized the importance of addressing this gap given the growing significance of STEM education for social mobility. The new paragraph explains why the current study is needed now, how it seeks to fill the gap, and what its main contributions are.
This addition strengthens the theoretical justification for the study and aligns with the reviewer’s request to increase the clarity and focus of the literature review.

Comment 2:

It would make more sense for Section 3 to be titled “Methodology” or “Research Method” rather than “Research questions and research hypotheses.”

Response:
Thank you for your helpful comment.

In response, we revised the title of Section 3 to "Methodology" (page 9, line 274) to better reflect the content of the section, which includes the research aims, research questions, hypotheses, sample, tools, and procedures.

The internal structure of the section (subsections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3) was kept as it was, as it provides clear organization and logical flow.

 

Comment 3:

Remove the subsection 3.2 Research Questions, from line 299 to line 303, as this subsection repeats content already presented in lines 275 to 280.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable comment.

In response, we revised subsection 3.1 Research Aims (page 9, lines 276-278) by removing the repeated research questions to avoid unnecessary duplication.

Subsection 3.2 Research Questions (page 10, lines 294-298) has been retained as it presents the research questions in their appropriate place.

Comment 4:

The purposive sampling is reasonable, but more detail on participant demographics (e.g., gender, school location, years of teaching) would strengthen claims of representativeness. It would also be helpful to provide more information on how the eight Druze junior high schools were selected. Include a justification for the sample size and address possible limitations in terms of representativeness.

Response:
Thank you for your valuable comment.

We added a clarification in the Research Method subsection (page 10, lines 301-309) regarding participant selection, specifying that the eight schools were all located in northern Israel and that the sample included teachers with 3 to 15 years of experience in STEM teaching.
Additionally, to address the issue of limitations and transparency, we inserted a new Limitations subsection before the Discussion and Conclusions section (page 24, lines 682-689).
This subsection highlights the limited geographic scope, the relatively small sample size, the reliance on self-reported experiences, and the absence of a control group or quantitative measures. These clarifications strengthen the methodological transparency of the study.

 

Comment 5:

 The typical structure of a paper includes an introduction, literature review/hypothesis, methodology, findings/results, and conclusion. However, the structure of this paper is somewhat unclear. For instance, when reading the sample, we would expect the data collection details to be presented together, but they are spread across two different sections.”

Response:
Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the structure of our manuscript.​

In response to your observation, we have consolidated all information pertaining to data collection into subsection 3.3.2 “Research Procedure” (page 11, lines 319-331) This subsection now includes comprehensive details on the selection of schools and participants, the interview process, consent procedures, audio recording, and transcription methods.​ By integrating these details into a single subsection, we aim to provide a more cohesive and accessible description of our methodology, aligning with standard academic structures.

Comment 6
​The findings section is lengthy and at times repetitive, with some themes reappearing in multiple sub-sections. It would be useful if streamline this section by consolidating overlapping themes and ensuring each paragraph adds unique value to the narrative.

Response:

Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the structure of the Findings section. In response to your observation, we have undertaken a thorough revision to enhance clarity and coherence.​

 

Specifically, we identified and consolidated overlapping themes to streamline the narrative:​

The subsections "Integrating technology and resources" and "Infrastructure and resource limitations" have been merged into a single subsection titled "Technological and Resource Constraints" (page 17, lines 488-501)

Similarly, the subsections "Parent and community support" and "Cultural and educational barriers" have been combined into "Cultural and Community Engagement Challenges".​(page 17, lines 488-501)

These changes aim to reduce redundancy and present a more concise and focused discussion of our findings. All significant data points and participant quotations have been preserved to maintain the integrity of the original content.

 

Comment 7

The conclusion section would benefit from the inclusion of a brief discussion of the study's limitations and directions for future research. For example, this study was conducted with a relatively small and localized sample - 25 STEM teachers from eight Druze junior high schools in northern Israel - which may not fully capture the diversity of educational experiences across the broader Druze sector. Additionally, the reliance on self-reported interview data may introduce subjective bias, limiting the generalizability of the findings. To enhance the study’s contribution, the authors could recommend future research.

Response:
Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the conclusion section. In response to your comment, we have introduced two key additions to strengthen the transparency and academic contribution of the study.

First, we included a separate “Limitations” subsection (page 24, lines 682-689) outlining the study’s key limitations. These include the small and localized sample size, reliance on self-reported data, and the absence of a control group or quantitative measurements—factors that may affect the generalizability and causal interpretations of the findings.

Second, we added a new subsection titled “Future Research Directions” (page 26, lines 744-750) at the end of the “Discussion and Conclusions” section. This subsection outlines several recommended avenues for future inquiry, including the replication of the intervention model in other minority sectors, the use of mixed-methods or longitudinal approaches, and comparative studies involving different cultural contexts.

Comment 8

There are several minor typographical errors and awkward phrasings that could benefit from a final language polish. For example, "25teachers from 8Druze schools" should be corrected by adding a space between "25" and "teachers."

Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected minor typographical errors, such as spacing issues (e.g., “25teachers” → “25 teachers”, “8Druze schools” → “8 Druze schools”).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction is short. It could use more information on the Druze vs. Hebrew school divisions and why you think this is important. The specific method/design for this study is missing. It is ‘implied’ later in the paper that it could be considered a mixed-method study; however, there is no quantitative data. The format suggests thematic results and a comparative study. Again, all the data and discussion revolve around Druze and no comparison with a specified Hebrew sector. I see no test results to support the ‘significance’ mentioned in several places.

Suggestion: When presenting pre-post-test results, let the readers know you have thematic representation. Presenting this section as a table might help them visualize what you are discussing.

Is this a better fit for a quantitative comparative study? There are not many in qualitative methods or designs.

Lines 19-24: Fit better with the method and design than the introduction, which is missing.

Do you have operational definitions? How do you define higher education? STEM? The Druze education system? Jewish students?

If you include quantitative data, please identify the variables and their reliability and validity. How will you measure those, and what do you anticipate the outcomes will be? How will that information be useful? Include limitations and generalizability before conclusions. Increasing the transparency of your study will allow others to build on this research in the future.

Author Response

Comment 1:
The introduction is short. It could use more information on the Druze vs. Hebrew school divisions and why you think this is important.

Response 1:
Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree with this observation. Therefore, we have expanded the Introduction section (page 2, paragraph 2 of Introduction, lines 20-29) to provide more background on the structural differences between the Druze and Hebrew education systems in Israel. We explained that these divisions are important because they influence access to resources, the integration of STEM education, and ultimately, the educational outcomes of Druze students. This clarification strengthens the foundation for understanding the disparities analyzed throughout the study.

 

Comment 2:
The specific method/design for this study is missing. It is ‘implied’ later in the paper that it could be considered a mixed-method study; however, there is no quantitative data. The format suggests thematic results and a comparative study. Again, all the data and discussion revolve around Druze and no comparison with a specified Hebrew sector. I see no test results to support the ‘significance’ mentioned in several places. Suggestion: When presenting pre-post-test results, let the readers know you have thematic representation. Presenting this section as a table might help them visualize what you are discussing.

Response:
Thank you for your valuable comment. We made two clarifications to address this issue:

1. In the Research Method section (page 11, lines 316-318), we explicitly stated that the empirical data collection and analysis were conducted solely within the Druze sector, and that broader comparisons to the Hebrew sector are based on previous research and literature, not on direct empirical data.
2. In the Findings section (pages 22-23, lines 636-640), before presenting the thematic table, we added a clarification that although pre- and post-intervention data were collected, the comparison was thematic, focusing on patterns and developments across two time points. We also presented a table summarizing key thematic changes to enhance clarity and help readers visualize the results.
3. In the Discussion and Conclusions section (page 25, lines 696-703), we revised the opening to explicitly note that the study used a qualitative thematic design based on pre- and post-intervention data collection, without applying statistical tests. We then continued with the details about the sample and research context, ensuring logical flow and full consistency with the updated methodological description.

These modifications explicitly define the qualitative thematic design of the study, clarify the scope of the comparative elements, and present the findings in a more accessible and structured way, thereby fully addressing the reviewer’s concerns.

 

Comment 3:
Lines 19-24: Fit better with the method and design than the introduction, which is missing.

Response:
Thank you for your helpful comment. To address this, we added a short introductory paragraph at the beginning of the Introduction section (page 1, lines 14-19).
This new paragraph provides a broad context, explaining the importance of STEM education for national development and the need to address educational disparities among minority groups. It leads naturally into the more specific discussion of the Druze education system that follows.
Thus, we aligned the structure with conventional academic expectations, starting with a general background before moving into the specific focus of the study, as recommended.

 

Comment 4:
Do you have operational definitions? How do you define higher education? STEM? The Druze education system? Jewish students?

Response:
Thank you for your helpful comment. To address this, we added brief clarifications of key terms at the beginning of the Introduction section (page 1, lines 30-31 and page 2, lines 59-61). Specifically, we clarified:

The Druze education system refers to the government-supervised educational framework for Druze citizens in Israel, which operates independently from the Arab education system and integrates Druze heritage studies alongside the national Israeli curriculum (Falah, 2018).

Jewish students refer to students educated in the Hebrew-speaking sector of Israel’s public education system, which combines secular and religious Jewish-Israeli national curricula (Blass & Adler, 2009).

 

Comment 5

If you include quantitative data, please identify the variables and their reliability and validity. How will you measure those, and what do you anticipate the outcomes will be? How will that information be useful? Include limitations and generalizability before conclusions. Increasing the transparency of your study will allow others to build on this research in the future.

Response:
Thank you for your valuable comment.

In response, we would like to clarify that this study was designed as a qualitative thematic analysis, rather than a quantitative study. Therefore, no formal independent or dependent variables were defined, and no formal measurement tools were used. Reliability and validity were addressed through methodological rigor, including careful transcription, independent coding by two researchers, and iterative review of the themes based on Forman and Damschroder’s (2007) model. Since the study’s focus was on exploring patterns in teachers' experiences rather than measuring specific variables, these aspects were handled in accordance with qualitative research standards. Accordingly, no changes were made to the manuscript itself regarding these elements, as they are consistent with the methodological framework employed.

However, to further increase the transparency of the study, we added a clarification regarding the anticipated outcomes at the end of the Research Aims subsection (page 10, lines 279-282). Specifically, we noted that we expected improvements in teachers’ pedagogical practices, greater use of technology and project-based learning, enhanced teacher motivation, increased student engagement in STEM subjects, and the development of strategies to overcome cultural and resource barriers. These anticipated outcomes align with the study’s qualitative goals and help clarify the expected impacts of the intervention.

We also added a short paragraph in the Discussion and Conclusions section (page 25, lines 731-736), explaining how the findings can be useful for future interventions. This paragraph emphasizes that the thematic insights can guide the development of culturally adapted STEM programs, inform professional development initiatives for teachers, and support policymakers in reducing educational disparities.

To further address your comment, we added two short sections before the Discussion and Conclusions section:

• A Limitations section (pages 24, lines 682-689) that acknowledges the study’s scope (focused only on the Druze sector), the relatively small sample size, the reliance on self-reported data, and the absence of a control group.
• A Generalizability section (page 24, lines 690-694) explaining that the findings are not intended to be statistically generalizable but provide valuable thematic insights that can guide similar efforts in comparable minority education systems.

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract and introduction show a distinct improvement. More information on the Druze vs. Hebrew school divisions is incorporated into the extensive literature review; 2.4.5. offers information on the disparity between the two groups, alluding as to why you think this is. Much better.

Line 84-85: This, in contrast  to Jewish schools where the students have better conditions, leading to significant gaps in  achievements (Blass & Adler, 2009; Ministry of Education, 2022) unclear, please review and revise for clarity 

Line 92: In addition, Blass and Kraus (2009) note differences in teachers teaching of Druze 92 students versus Jewish students. please review/revise for clarity 

Line 97: RAMA, if that is the first place you have indicated, it might be good to expand the meaning and then use the abbreviation.

Line 312: methodology: you probably don't need to mention the RQ again, as they are just above in lines 294-300.

Would it be possible to include your method/design in the title?

Suggestion: when presenting pre-post-test results, let the readers know you have thematic representation. Presenting this section as a table might be helpful in visualizing what you are discussing. Much better.

What outcomes do you anticipate? These factors were discussed at the end of each sub-theme narrative.

How will that information be useful? Include limitations and generalizability before conclusions. Increasing the transparency of your study will allow others to build on this research in the future.  This time, the implications and limitations were more robust.

Author Response

Comment 1:

The abstract and introduction show a distinct improvement. More information on the Druze vs. Hebrew school divisions is incorporated into the extensive literature review; 2.4.5. offers information on the disparity between the two groups, alluding as to why you think this is. Much better.

Response:
Thank you very much for your positive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the improvements made to the abstract, introduction, and literature review. In particular, we aimed to provide a more comprehensive context regarding the disparities between the Druze and Hebrew school sectors, which we elaborated on in subsection 2.4.5. We are glad to know that these changes have enhanced the clarity and relevance of the manuscript.

 

Comment 2:

Line 84-85: “This, in contrast to Jewish schools where the students have better conditions, leading to significant gaps in achievements” –  unclear, please review and revise for clarity.

Response:
Thank you for your helpful comment. In response, we revised the sentence for clarity and improved readability. The updated version (page 2, lines 84-85) now reads:

“In contrast, students in Jewish schools benefit from better conditions, which contributes to significant achievement gaps between the sectors.”

 

Comment 3:

Line 92: “In addition, Blass and Kraus (2009) note differences in teachers teaching of Druze students versus Jewish students.” –  please review/revise for clarity.

Response:
Thank you for your helpful suggestion.

To clarify the intended meaning, we revised the sentence on page 3, line 92. It now reads:
“Blass and Kraus (2009) note differences in the training and preparation of teachers from the Druze sector compared to those from the Jewish sector.”

 

Comment 4:

Line 97: RAMA, if that is the first place you have indicated, it might be good to expand the meaning and then use the abbreviation.

Response:
Thank you for your helpful suggestion. In response, we clarified the first reference to RAMA by adding its full designation – the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education – along with a brief explanation of its role (page 3, lines 99-100).

 

 

Comment 5:

Line 312: Methodology: you probably don't need to mention the research questions again, as they are just above in lines 294-300.

Response:
Thank you for your careful observation. In response to your comment, we removed subsection 3.2 Research Questions to avoid unnecessary repetition, as the research questions are already clearly stated in the preceding section

 

Comment 6:

Would it be possible to include your method/design in the title?

Response:
Thank you for your suggestion. We appreciate the importance of transparency in academic titles. However, we chose to retain the original title, “Promoting Excellence Among Teachers of Science and Technology in the Druze Sector,” in order to keep it concise and focused on the central theme of the study. The methodological approach – qualitative thematic analysis – is clearly specified in both the abstract and the methodology section, where it is discussed in detail.

 

Comment 7:

Suggestion: when presenting pre-post-test results, let the readers know you have thematic representation. Presenting this section as a table might be helpful in visualizing what you are discussing. Much better.

Response:
Thank you for the helpful suggestion. We agree that this was an important improvement

 

Comment 8:

What outcomes do you anticipate? These factors were discussed at the end of each sub-theme narrative.

Response:
Thank you. We appreciate your attention to the structure and clarity of the analysis.

 

Comment:
How will that information be useful? Include limitations and generalizability before conclusions. Increasing the transparency of your study will allow others to build on this research in the future. This time, the implications and limitations were more robust.

Response:
Thank you for your encouraging feedback. We agree that this improves the overall transparency and supports the study’s future applicability.