Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The manuscript is in line with the topic of the Special Issue to which it was submitted. It will be of interest to an international audience concerned with intercultural education and teacher training. By means of a thematic analysis of five official policy documents, the study aims to depict the basic elements of intercultural teacher education. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.

 

Major Issues

1. The way the analysis is framed raises several concerns. The documents you examine set out frameworks and guidelines for intercultural education at different levels, and are likely based on previous research and concrete examples. Also, they are not specifically focused on teachers. This leads me to ask:

• • On what grounds can you claim that analyzing these documents allows you to “highlight important aspects of the initial and continuing intercultural education of teachers”? Isn’t the analysis mainly a summary of the documents’ main points on teacher education, rather than an original contribution?
  • Since the documents are very recent, how can their analysis be presented as a way to detect “contemporary trends and needs” or to overcome “outdated and obsolete teacher education and training programs”? Relatedly, the study you cite to support the idea that such programs are obsolete is from 2014. How do we know teacher education has not improved since then? Are there more recent studies you could reference? Actually, your analysis also presents concrete positive examples of intercultural education, which seems to contradict your main claim.

If I understand correctly, your aim is to show that these documents introduce new guidelines and good practices that are not yet—or only partially—reflected in training programs, and that your analysis can inform the development of future curricula. If so, I recommend making this explicit and underlining the originality of your contribution. It would also help to clarify whether your analysis focused only on sections dealing with teacher education. These aspects are crucial for the relevance and scientific soundness of the paper.

2. It is not entirely clear whether you are analyzing intercultural education targeted specifically at teachers, or how educational institutions more broadly should promote interculturality. Similarly, are you arguing that teachers should become interculturally competent in order to manage diversity in the classroom, or that they should acquire tools to embed intercultural education in their teaching and help students become intercultural citizens? These are related but distinct aims, and they require to be treated slightly differently. At times, your paper appears to mix them. Clarifying this point would help structure the paper more clearly, particularly in the section "Fundamental elements of intercultural teacher education" and in the "Results" section.

 

Minor Issues

• Abstract: The abstract could be streamlined by separating focus, methodology, and results into distinct sentences. For example, what does “as key codes and from which the thematic axes emerged” mean? Isn’t this a methodological detail rather than a key finding?
• Introduction: The introduction sets the stage well. However, the relevance of teachers could be mentioned earlier, since they are the main focus of the paper. Also, the term "relative international documents" is misleading: in many contexts it refers to documents proving family relationships across borders, which is clearly not your case. Please clarify and briefly describe the type of documents analyzed.
• Teacher Professional Development: This section offers a good overview of structures and challenges, but it is somewhat disconnected from the paper’s main focus on intercultural teacher education. It is also rather long, especially as the models and challenges discussed are not taken up later. There is also some confusion between "continuing education" and "career development", and a lack of references for the discussion of “training models and strategies.”
• Materials and Methods: Instead of devoting several lines to a general description of thematic analysis (which readers are likely familiar with), it would be more useful to specify which kind of thematic analysis you conducted (inductive? deductive?) and how you generated your codes. You also follow one particular approach out of many; please specify this. I also recommend inverting the order of presentation: first, materials; second, your method.
  Additionally, why were these five documents chosen? There are many other official documents that could have been analyzed. The ones you selected seem to address inclusion broadly, not just cultural and linguistic inclusion. While the choice may be justified, it needs to be explained.

• Results: Why does the section title refer to “thematic networks” if you analyze each theme separately?
  As mentioned above, it is difficult to tell whether you are describing training programs for teachers or what teachers should implement in the classroom. Much of the section reads like long lists of skills or aspects, which may obscure the main points. Moreover, the good practices you describe are not “key aspects of initial and continuing professional education,” but rather examples of successful training programs.
• Discussion: Because the focus of the paper is not clearly defined, the discussion reads like a broad summary of ideas rather than a structured analysis with clear points and directions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from language editing. There are mismatches in verb forms, awkward linkers, some overly long sentences, and a few old-fashioned word choices. While style is a matter of preference, a more straightforward and plain language would enhance readability, especially for readers whose first language is not English.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your highly constructive comments, which were invaluable in improving the paper we submitted for consideration in the special issue.

With regard to your first comment, we revised the study’s aims and enriched the reference list with more recent sources that highlight the challenges of intercultural teacher education, thereby underscoring the contribution of the present research. We also clarified that our analysis focuses exclusively on sections dealing with teacher education and on how this can support teachers in acquiring the necessary tools to embed intercultural education in their practice and to foster students’ development as intercultural citizens.

Concerning the minor issues, the abstract was streamlined by separating the focus, methodology, and results into distinct sentences. In the introduction, the relevance of teachers was emphasized at the outset, since they constitute the primary focus of the paper. Additional key information regarding the documents analyzed was also incorporated.

In relation to the Teacher Professional Development section, some information was removed in order to reduce its length, while additional in-text references were included. As for the Materials and Methods, details regarding thematic analysis were refined, the term inductive thematic analysis was specified, the presentation of the materials preceded that of the methodology, and the selection of the analyzed documents was justified. Regarding the results, the title thematic networks was replaced with themes, and it was clarified that the analysis pertains to intercultural teacher education—namely, the knowledge, skills, values, and teaching approaches that educators should acquire through intercultural training, along with good practices from successful professional development programs. The Discussion section was restructured around the main axes of the analysis in a manner that we hope is clearer and more distinct, following your guidance.

Finally, comprehensive language editing of the entire manuscript was undertaken, whereas major changes are highlighted in yellow color.

 

Kind regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your manuscript addresses a highly relevant topic in contemporary education, but requires substantial revision before meeting publication standards. My primary concerns involve methodological rigor and analytical depth. Your thematic analysis lacks clear research questions, detailed procedures, and critical examination of the policy documents.  You may need to focus on developing a robust theoretical framework, expanding your literature base, and transforming the largely descriptive results into critical analysis. The topic has strong potential for meaningful scholarly contribution with proper methodological strengthening.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thoughtful and constructive comments, which have been invaluable in improving the paper we submitted for consideration in the special issue.

In response to your feedback, we revised the study’s aims and enriched the reference list with more recent sources that highlight the challenges of intercultural teacher education, thereby underscoring the contribution of the present research. We also clarified that our analysis focuses specifically on sections addressing teacher education and on how this can support teachers in acquiring the necessary tools to embed intercultural education in their practice and to foster students’ development as intercultural citizens.

Regarding the abstract, it was streamlined by separating the focus, methodology, and results into distinct sentences. In the introduction, the relevance of teachers was emphasized from the outset, since they constitute the primary focus of the paper. Additional information about the documents analyzed was incorporated, and the discussion of multicultural education was expanded with references to Banks (2006) and Nieto & Bode (2018). Furthermore, our claims regarding teacher readiness were reinforced with two additional citations.

In the Teacher Professional Development section, some content was removed to reduce length, while additional in-text references were included. The challenges were synthesized more analytically, and clearer connections to intercultural competence development were established. A more critical stance toward policy frameworks was adopted, with underlying assumptions examined more explicitly.

As for the Materials and Methods, details of the thematic analysis were refined, the term inductive thematic analysis was specified, the presentation of the materials was placed before the methodology, and the selection of the analyzed documents was justified. Regarding the results, the title thematic networks was replaced with themes, and it was clarified that the analysis pertains to intercultural teacher education—namely, the knowledge, skills, values, and teaching approaches that educators should acquire through intercultural training, along with good practices from successful professional development programs.

The Discussion section was restructured around the main axes of the analysis in a way that we hope is clearer and more coherent, in line with your guidance. Greater attention was given to teaching methods, critical examinations of effectiveness and cultural responsiveness, and the underlying causes of identified challenges.

Finally, comprehensive language editing of the entire manuscript was undertaken, and the major changes are highlighted in yellow.

Kind regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper again. I congratulate the authors for the substantial revisions made — the manuscript is now much clearer and more to the point.

The introduction has been strengthened, with a valuable addition that sets the stage more effectively. The literature review now adopts a more critical stance, which I very much appreciate. The methodology section is streamlined and easier to follow. The revisions to the Results section introduction are strong and make the section more accessible.

That said, I noticed one point of inconsistency: you state that “five organizing themes emerged” but then list six themes. As a suggestion (please feel free not to adopt this if you disagree), you might consider presenting school leadership as the fifth theme, and then treating the examples of good practices separately, perhaps as a final subsection rather than a full theme.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend one final language revision, as some expressions are still a bit odd or imprecise. For instance: “inductive thematic analysis” is better described as a method of analysis rather than a tool; if the study conducts this analysis, it does not “attempt” to do so — it “focuses on,” “examines,” or “analyzes.”

Please check the use of the definite article “the,” which is sometimes unnecessary or should be replaced (e.g., “composition of student population,” “applying a qualitative methodology”).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to sincerely thank you for your constructive and insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript.

First, we would like to inform you that the inaccurate reference to the five themes has been corrected. However, we kindly ask to maintain the six themes, as we believe this structure better reflects the scope and depth of the analysis.

With regard to the quality of the English language, revisions have been made in line with your suggestions, and we carefully reviewed the text to enhance clarity, coherence, and overall readability.

Finally, comprehensive language editing of the entire manuscript was undertaken, whereas suggested changes are highlighted in green color.

We truly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work and remain grateful for your valuable feedback, which has helped us strengthen both the content and the presentation of the paper.

Sincerely,
the authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your revision successfully addresses several key concerns from the initial review. The distinction between multicultural and intercultural education is now clearly articulated, the methods section was expanded, and the Discussion section demonstrates stronger analytical engagement with the findings. The theoretical grounding has been substantially improved.

Critical Areas Requiring Further Development

Your methodology section requires significant expansion to meet scholarly standards:

1. How did you initially code the documents? What software did you use? How did you move from initial codes to basic themes?
2. Did multiple researchers code independently? How did you ensure consistency in interpretation?
3. How did you handle contradictions or ambiguities in the documents? What criteria guided theme development?
4. How might your backgrounds as educators have influenced the analysis?

While your thematic organization is clear, the Results section reads as a catalog of findings rather than an analysis:

1. What patterns emerge across the different policy documents? Do UNESCO and OECD documents emphasize different aspects?
2. What important aspects of intercultural teacher education are not addressed in these policy documents?
3. How realistic are the policy recommendations given the challenges you identify?
4. How do these policies address or potentially perpetuate existing power imbalances in education?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your constructive and insightful comments, which have been extremely valuable in improving the manuscript.

First, we would like to inform you that we have added important details regarding the methodology employed, with particular emphasis on the validity and reliability of the thematic analysis. In addition, although we had already highlighted the common and divergent themes across the texts under study, we have now provided a more extensive discussion of these issues in the Discussion section.

Finally, with respect to your questions concerning the aspects of intercultural teacher education that are not explicitly addressed in the policy documents, the contextual implementation of policies, and the potential reproduction of imbalances in education, we have incorporated further reflections into both the Discussion and Conclusion sections.

Finally, comprehensive language editing of the entire manuscript was undertaken, whereas suggested changes are highlighted in green color.

Once again, we are grateful for your thoughtful feedback, which has helped us to refine and strengthen both the substance and clarity of our work.

Kindly,

The authors