Gender, Ethnicity and Teaching Competencies: Do They Influence Intercultural Communicative Competence in Teacher Education?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript, which addresses an important topic in teacher education: the development of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) and its associations with gender, ethnicity, and faculty quality within initial teacher education. While the paper addresses an important issue, it currently lacks the foundational rigor and clarity required for publication in an academic journal. Below are the main points for consideration:

1. Theoretical Background: The manuscript briefly mentions ICC in the introduction; however, it lacks a comprehensive theoretical framework to situate the concept within existing scholarly discourse. ICC has multiple established theories and models. In-depth engagement with foundational theories would strengthen the theoretical background. Currently, the lack of theoretical depth limits the reader's understanding of how the study positions itself within broader academic discussions on ICC.
2. Research Objectives: The aim of the manuscript is to define ICC, examine its evolution, and explore its connections with gender, ethnicity, and faculty quality. However, these objectives are not consistently followed through, leaving the reader uncertain about the study’s precise contribution. Furthermore, as the current manuscript is based on a (literature) review, it would benefit from a clear indication of whether it intends to be a systematic review, a narrative synthesis, or a meta-analysis.
3. Methodology: The methodology section is underdeveloped and lacks essential details. The paper refers to Figure 1, titled "Inductive Logic in Quality Study," adapted from Creswell & Creswell, which introduces further confusion. Creswell’s model pertains to empirical research grounded in qualitative data collected through interviews, observations, or similar techniques. However, this study appears to be based solely on a literature review, making the inclusion of an empirical research model inappropriate. If the authors are indeed conducting a literature review, they should replace this with a more relevant framework for synthesizing literature, such as PRISMA for systematic reviews or narrative review conventions.
4. Data Analysis: The manuscript does not outline its data analysis methods, which is a critical gap. In a literature review, it is essential to specify the databases used, search criteria, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the number of studies included in the analysis. Without these details, it is unclear how the authors derived their findings, which significantly weakens the study's credibility and replicability. Additionally, information regarding sampling or selection criteria is absent, making it challenging to ascertain the scope and representativeness of the included literature.

In conclusion, while the manuscript raises a pertinent issue of intercultural communicative competence in teacher education, it requires significant work to strengthen the theoretical framework, clarify its methodology, and ensure a coherent presentation of findings and discussion.

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: Theoretical Background: The manuscript briefly mentions ICC in the introduction; however, it lacks a comprehensive theoretical framework to situate the concept within existing scholarly discourse. ICC has multiple established theories and models. In-depth engagement with foundational theories would strengthen the theoretical background. Currently, the lack of theoretical depth limits the reader's understanding of how the study positions itself within broader academic discussions on ICC.

Response: Multiple fundamental theories and models related to Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) were included, such as those of Byram, Deardorff and Arasaratnam's Integrated Model. These contributions allow situating the concept of ICC within the existing academic discourse, providing a solid basis for understanding its relevance in initial teacher education.
A discussion of how CCI has been conceptualized in different disciplines was added, highlighting its multifaceted and adaptive character. This includes a review of the cognitive, affective and behavioral components of CCI, providing further theoretical depth.
It was specified how this study contributes to the academic field by synthesizing interdisciplinary approaches and proposing an updated perspective that addresses gaps identified in the existing literature. This allows contextualizing the research within broader discussions on cultural diversity and inclusive education.

 

Comment 2: Research Objectives: The aim of the manuscript is to define ICC, examine its evolution, and explore its connections with gender, ethnicity, and faculty quality. However, these objectives are not consistently followed through, leaving the reader uncertain about the study’s precise contribution. Furthermore, as the current manuscript is based on a (literature) review, it would benefit from a clear indication of whether it intends to be a systematic review, a narrative synthesis, or a meta-analysis.

Response: The research objectives were reformulated and made explicit at the beginning of the article, clearly highlighting that the main purpose is to define CCI, analyze its development and explore its relationship with gender, ethnicity and teacher quality. In addition, specific connections between these objectives and the findings of the study were integrated to ensure coherence throughout the text. The approach adopted was specified as a narrative review. This choice was justified as the most appropriate due to the exploratory and theoretical nature of the study, which aims to map the conceptual and interdisciplinary development of CCI, identify patterns and trends, and propose future directions for research.
Sections were added to explain more clearly how this review contributes to the existing literature. This includes identifying gaps in current theoretical models and proposing an updated theoretical framework that articulates the importance of CCI in initial teacher education and in diverse educational contexts.

 

Comment 3: Methodology: The methodology section is underdeveloped and lacks essential details. The paper refers to Figure 1, titled "Inductive Logic in Quality Study," adapted from Creswell & Creswell, which introduces further confusion. Creswell’s model pertains to empirical research grounded in qualitative data collected through interviews, observations, or similar techniques. However, this study appears to be based solely on a literature review, making the inclusion of an empirical research model inappropriate. If the authors are indeed conducting a literature review, they should replace this with a more relevant framework for synthesizing literature, such as PRISMA for systematic reviews or narrative review conventions.

Response: Reference to the Creswell & Creswell model was removed, recognizing that their approach is intended for empirical research based on qualitative data. Instead, a methodological framework more suitable for a literature review was described, specifying the conventions of a narrative review as the central strategy.
A clear description of why this approach is the most relevant for the study was included, considering that CCI is an interdisciplinary and emerging field. The narrative review allows exploration and synthesis of existing theories and models, identifying key patterns and trends in the literature without being limited to a rigid protocol such as PRISMA.
Details were added on the databases used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and key terms used in the literature search. This ensures that the review process is transparent and replicable, strengthening the credibility of the approach adopted.
It was reinforced how the selected methodological framework allows addressing the objectives of the study, highlighting its relevance in mapping the conceptual development of CCI and exploring its intersections with gender, ethnicity and teacher quality.

 

Comment 4: Data Analysis: The manuscript does not outline its data analysis methods, which is a critical gap. In a literature review, it is essential to specify the databases used, search criteria, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the number of studies included in the analysis. Without these details, it is unclear how the authors derived their findings, which significantly weakens the study's credibility and replicability. Additionally, information regarding sampling or selection criteria is absent, making it challenging to ascertain the scope and representativeness of the included literature.

Response: We respect the reviewer's opinion but disagree. The databases used in the search were detailed, including Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE, selected for their relevance to the fields of education and social sciences.
Key terms used for the search were added, such as “Intercultural Communicative Competence,” “gender and education,” “ethnic diversity and teacher education,” and “inclusive education and teacher quality.” The criteria for inclusion (studies published between 2019 and 2024, peer-reviewed and relevant to the study objectives) and exclusion (gray literature or non-peer-reviewed papers) were also explained.
 The analysis process was described, using MAXQDA software to organize and code the texts, identifying thematic patterns and gaps in the literature.
It was highlighted how the selection criteria ensured that the literature analyzed covered diverse interdisciplinary perspectives, providing a comprehensive and representative picture of the field.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presented is well-written and it follows a good structure. The review is comprehensive and it cites key references in the field.

After lines 44/45 more development of the relation between sustainability and education for teachers is needed. Maybe a connection in how to educate global citizens etc..

The methodology used is correct and well-explained. Although, it would be good for the authors to explain Figure 1 as well as definitions of different literatures reviews, or at least the main definition os systemic literature review and non-systemic.

The table presented is very good and interesting. The results are well-explained and detailed.  The results are relevant for the field.

 

However, I recommend authors to review references, for example: Bennett´s reference is missing, and it also has a typo is missing one  at the end (on the text line 163). When explaining the models it would be important to develop the following idea more: the developmental character of intercultural competence.

The conclusions are adequate for the work and research presented. However, a more in depth analysis of how higher education institutions should contribute to the development of ICC of their students is needed.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: After lines 44/45 more development of the relation between sustainability and education for teachers is needed. Maybe a connection in how to educate global citizens etc.

Response: The reviewer's suggestion is accepted. The penultimate paragraph has been revised and expanded, emphasizing the essential role of teachers in the formation of global citizens committed to the principles of sustainability. 

 

Comment 2: The methodology used is correct and well-explained. Although, it would be good for the authors to explain Figure 1 as well as definitions of different literatures reviews, or at least the main definition os systemic literature review and non-systemic.

Response: Based on the comment of reviewer 1, it was decided to eliminate Figure 1 from the manuscript, since its inclusion was not necessary for the methodological approach adopted and could generate confusion regarding the purpose of the study. This allowed the methodological section to be simplified and clarified.

 

Comment 3:  I recommend authors to review references, for example: Bennett´s reference is missing, and it also has a typo is missing one  at the end (on the text line 163). When explaining the models it would be important to develop the following idea more: the developmental character of intercultural competence.

Response: Errors were corrected and bibliography was supplemented.

 

Comment 4: A more in depth analysis of how higher education institutions should contribute to the development of ICC of their students is needed.

Response: A more detailed discussion was developed on how these institutions can contribute to the development of Intercultural Communication Competence (ICC) in their students. Strategies were highlighted on how the incorporation of academic programs with an intercultural focus, mandatory modules on cultural diversity, and the design of practical experiences in multicultural contexts benefit ICC in higher education. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction is not focused enough on the contributions of this article. A couple of statements were disputable (why does covid-19 increase intercultural interactions? why is it only meaningful to develop ICC on university level?), but there was not sufficient information that convincingly states why we need a literature review on ICC.  

The methods section was surprisingly short. I would have liked to know about the data sampling and analysis, but neither were mentioned.

I disagree that there is no clear definition of intercultural communicative competence. It was coined by Byram and his definition of the term has been highly influential. The concept is however disputed, and terms like intercultural sensitivity are not used interchangeably with ICC (and it reads here like you claim that), but they emphasize something else. The text uses intercultural competence and intercultural competence interchangeably when reviewing the development of ICC (Deardoff's model for example is on IC, not ICC, but it is treated as ICC throughout), which leads to a number of ambiguous and misleading claims. 

It is unclear what the contribution of a description of different models is. The conclusions you draw are not new. It is confusing that you then move on to summarise how different studies provide evidence for the development of ICC without explaining what particular framework has been used. It is suddenly treated as a clearly defined term. 

One contribution I could see in this paper is the discussion of whether gender is a factor in ICC development - which is very tricky to argue as concepts of gender vary across cultures. There's also something to be said about the potential of this perspective to strengthen stereotypes.

For this paper to be publishable you would have to be much clearer on the use and definition of ICC that you are applying, and you would have to reorganise the paper so it has a clear focus and message regarding a particular issue, e.g., gender/ethnicity/being minoritsed as a factor for ICC. This also applies to the comments you make on faculty members: a few studies on this subject are discussed briefly at the end of the paper, but the lack of focus and confusion regarding IC/ICC makes it read like an afterthought. Keep in mind that if your paper simply states that we don't know whether these factors have an impact then it doesn't add to our knowledge.

I would suggest to try to write a paper that is solution-focused, which is again hard to do without empirical evidence underlying your suggestions.  If you were to develop this further, I would not recommend a literature review.

Author Response

Comment 1: The introduction is not focused enough on the contributions of this article. A couple of statements were disputable (why does covid-19 increase intercultural interactions? why is it only meaningful to develop ICC on university level?), but there was not sufficient information that convincingly states why we need a literature review on ICC.  

Response: Claims related to the impact of COVID-19 on cross-cultural interactions were reviewed. It is now explained that the increase in virtual interactions and the globalization of educational environments during the pandemic promoted greater interaction between people from different cultures.
The statement about the relevance of developing ICC only at the university level was corrected, broadening the discussion to include its importance at other educational stages. However, it is emphasized that the university level is key due to the formative impact it has on future teachers who will work in multicultural contexts.

 

Comment 2: The methods section was surprisingly short. I would have liked to know about the data sampling and analysis, but neither were mentioned.

Response: The entire methods section was improved. More details are now provided on the process of selection and analysis of the articles.

 

Comment 3: It is unclear what the contribution of a description of different models is. The conclusions you draw are not new. It is confusing that you then move on to summarise how different studies provide evidence for the development of ICC without explaining what particular framework has been used. It is suddenly treated as a clearly defined term. 

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. A paragraph was added justifying the need for a review of the literature on CCI, highlighting that this article addresses the lack of consensus on its definitions and models. It also underscores its relevance in initial teacher education and seeks to provide an updated theoretical framework to guide future research and educational practices.
In the theoretical framework, it was explicitly explained that the description of the different models of Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) is intended to provide a solid conceptual basis for contextualizing the study.This analysis allows identifying both the strengths and limitations of the existing models, highlighting their contribution to the field of initial teacher education.
A clearer transition was incorporated between the description of the theoretical models and the empirical evidence presented in the article. In addition, it was explained how the selected models (such as those of Byram, Deardorff and Arasaratnam) provide an interpretive framework for analyzing previous research findings on CCI development.
Moreover, a clear and consistent definition of CCI was established at the beginning of the article, based on the most influential models. This definition was used consistently throughout the manuscript to avoid terminological confusion.
Finally, the conclusions were reviewed with the aim of avoiding redundant statements, emphasizing how this theoretical analysis can serve as a guide for future research and practical applications in intercultural education.

 

Comment 4: One contribution I could see in this paper is the discussion of whether gender is a factor in ICC development - which is very tricky to argue as concepts of gender vary across cultures. There's also something to be said about the potential of this perspective to strengthen stereotypes.

Response: The analysis of how perceptions and concepts of gender vary significantly across cultures was expanded. This made it possible to address cultural differences in the construction of gender, emphasizing that gender-related findings must be interpreted within specific sociocultural contexts.
A section was included warning about the risks of generalizing the findings on gender and CCI, emphasizing that the aim is not to reinforce stereotypes, but to understand patterns observed in previous studies. In addition, a critical approach that promotes gender equity in educational contexts was proposed.A more balanced discussion of studies suggesting gender differences in CCI was presented, highlighting both methodological limitations and contradictions in the literature, which invites a cautious interpretation of the results.
It explored how a critical understanding of the relationship between gender and CCI can inform inclusive strategies in teacher education, helping future educators manage gender dynamics in multicultural contexts without reinforcing stereotypes.

 

Comment 5: For this paper to be publishable you would have to be much clearer on the use and definition of ICC that you are applying, and you would have to reorganise the paper so it has a clear focus and message regarding a particular issue, e.g., gender/ethnicity/being minoritsed as a factor for ICC. This also applies to the comments you make on faculty members: a few studies on this subject are discussed briefly at the end of the paper, but the lack of focus and confusion regarding IC/ICC makes it read like an afterthought. Keep in mind that if your paper simply states that we don't know whether these factors have an impact then it doesn't add to our knowledge.

Response: An explicit and well-grounded definition of Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) was included, based on the most influential models such as those of Byram and Deardorff. This definition is presented at the beginning of the article and is used consistently throughout the text to avoid confusion with the broader concept of Intercultural Competence.
The article was reorganized to have a clearer and more coherent focus. Specific sections were structured to analyze the impact of gender, ethnicity and being part of minority groups on the development of ICC, addressing how each of these factors influences different educational contexts.
A more robust section on the influence of teachers in promoting ICC was developed, including relevant studies analyzing their pedagogical preparation, cultural sensitivity, and role in creating inclusive environments. This eliminated the perception that this topic was an addendum at the end of the article.
It was emphasized how the article brings new knowledge to the field. While acknowledging the lack of consensus in some areas, patterns and trends were identified that provide a useful framework for future research and practice in initial teacher education. It avoided simply stating that “it is not known” whether these factors have an impact, opting instead to propose possible directions for exploring these connections.

 

 Comment 6: I would suggest to try to write a paper that is solution-focused, which is again hard to do without empirical evidence underlying your suggestions.  If you were to develop this further, I would not recommend a literature review.

Response: Although this paper is based on a narrative review, an effort was made to present the content from a more solution-oriented perspective. Practical strategies for integrating Intercultural Communication Competence (ICC) into initial teacher education were proposed based on the patterns and trends identified in the literature reviewed.
Concrete suggestions included: Design teacher training programs that incorporate specific modules on cultural diversity and intercultural communication. Promote experiential learning activities, such as virtual exchanges and case studies based on multicultural contexts. Improve teacher training through ongoing professional development programs in intercultural competencies.
It was made clear that, in the absence of direct empirical evidence, these proposals are based on theoretical analysis and existing literature. It was emphasized that the main purpose of this article is to lay a solid conceptual foundation for future research, rather than to present fully validated solutions.
Possible lines of empirical research were suggested to validate and develop the included proposals, such as longitudinal studies on the impact of intercultural training programs on teachers and students.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find that the article is well-written, with a plausible derivation of the research questions, an appropriate presentation of the methodology, and a clear presentation of the results. Conclusions for the research field and teacher education are discussed.

I only stumbled over the term "quality of a faculty member," as the construct is very broad and can be interpreted in different ways. Is there perhaps a term that better captures the intended construct, such as "teaching skills of the faculty member" or something similar?

Author Response

Comment: I only stumbled over the term "quality of a faculty member," as the construct is very broad and can be interpreted in different ways. Is there perhaps a term that better captures the intended construct, such as "teaching skills of the faculty member" or something similar?

Response: We appreciate your comment on the term “quality of a faculty member” and your suggestion to use a more precise expression. After careful review of the terminology, we have chosen to use “teaching competencies,” as this concept encompasses not only pedagogical skills, but also key aspects such as teacher education, pedagogical commitment, impact on learning, interculturality, and the importance of ongoing training, as discussed in section 2.6.
Accordingly, we have substituted the term throughout the manuscript to ensure conceptual consistency and clarity for the reader. We have also adjusted the title of the article and the corresponding section title to better reflect this approach. We greatly appreciate your suggestion, which has allowed us to further refine our argumentation.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article fits the format of the journal, and a theoretical framework and such a complete introduction are appreciated, although I recommend the following indications:
-In point 2.1 it is indicated that in some documents related to CI and there is only one citation, it would be advisable to add more references.
-At the beginning of point 2.3 it would be advisable to add a citation for the definition of communication and the cultural diversity of students, which poses important teaching challenges.
-Errors in some citations such as: Álvarez Valdivia & González Montoto, Álvarez Diaz & Sorey Meza, only one surname, also check in bibliography.
-Within the method it would be convenient to add a figure or a table that reflects what the reader will find in the manuscript.
-Within the results, give importance to teachers regarding the gender gap, some citations that could be added are: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0035073 https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XLII.3.528 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080829
-In the results, it would also be convenient to add tables with each of the sections and in the discussion add one that summarizes everything, since it is too much text and it would help the reader.

Author Response

Comment 1: In point 2.1 it is indicated that in some documents related to CI and there is only one citation, it would be advisable to add more references.

Response 1: We appreciate and welcome the reviewer's suggestion. To strengthen the statement in 2.1: “In some documents related to CI, terms such as intercultural competence, intercultural sensitivity, intercultural efficiency, intercultural effectiveness, intercultural awareness, intercultural adaptation, among others, are used interchangeably”, we have incorporated three additional references that support this idea: Arasaratnam (2016), Fantini (2020) and Munezane (2024). These sources broaden the theoretical basis and provide further strength to the argumentation presented.

Comment 2: At the beginning of point 2.3 it would be advisable to add a citation for the definition of communication and the cultural diversity of students, which poses important teaching challenges.

Response 2: Two additional citations were incorporated in section 2.3 to strengthen the argumentation. For the definition of communication, the reference to Higgins & Semin (2001) has been included. Also, to clarify the concept of student cultural diversity, the following quote has been added: “where the cultural diversity of students-understood as the coexistence and interaction of individuals with different ethnic, linguistic, religious, and social backgrounds, among others (Ithuralde & Dumrauf, 2021)-poses significant challenges for teachers.” These additions allow us to better substantiate the approach and provide greater academic rigor to the section.

Comment 3: Errors in some citations such as: Álvarez Valdivia & González Montoto, Álvarez Diaz & Sorey Meza, only one surname, also check in bibliography.

Response 3: All citations and references in which the authors have two surnames were reviewed and corrected, ensuring consistency with the bibliographic format used in the manuscript. We are grateful for their observation, since it allowed us to improve the precision and consistency in the citation.

Comment 4: Within the method it would be convenient to add a figure or a table that reflects what the reader will find in the manuscript.

Response 4: The reviewer's suggestion has been accepted and a figure has been incorporated in the method section to provide a clear visual representation of the structure and content of the manuscript. This addition facilitates understanding of the approach followed in the study and orients the reader to the key elements addressed.

Comment 5: Within the results, give importance to teachers regarding the gender gap, some citations that could be added are: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0035073 https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XLII.3.528 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080829

Response 5: After reviewing the suggested articles, the recommendation has been accepted and two of the three proposed citations, namely Dee (2007) and Robinson-Cimpian et al. (2014), have been incorporated, as they are relevant to the focus of the topic discussed. We are grateful for the reviewer's suggestions. However, it should be noted that the results presented in the manuscript are based on a search conducted in the databases specified in the methodology (Scopus, Web of Science, Taylor & Francis, SAGE and ProQuest) for the period 2019-2024. For this reason, we have decided to incorporate the suggested references at the beginning of the manuscript, specifically in the introduction, to enrich the context and theoretical basis of the study.

Comment 6: In the results, it would also be convenient to add tables with each of the sections and in the discussion add one that summarizes everything, since it is too much text and it would help the reader.

Response 6: Table 1 has been incorporated, which summarizes the definitions of Intercultural Competence (IC) and Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC). This table facilitates understanding of the key distinctions between the two concepts and provides a useful visual reference for the reader, reducing the text load in the results section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the authors' revisions. While the revisions have improved the manuscript, it remains challenging to identify a substantial added value that sets the study apart within the broader academic discourse. The manuscript would greatly benefit from a more precise articulation of its unique contribution to the field and a more focused discussion on how it advances existing knowledge beyond merely synthesizing current literature. I appreciate the authors' efforts and wish them success in further refining and strengthening their study.

Author Response

Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to review the authors' revisions. While the revisions have improved the manuscript, it remains challenging to identify a substantial added value that sets the study apart within the broader academic discourse. The manuscript would greatly benefit from a more precise articulation of its unique contribution to the field and a more focused discussion on how it advances existing knowledge beyond merely synthesizing current literature. I appreciate the authors' efforts and wish them success in further refining and strengthening their study.

Response: We appreciate your detailed and constructive comments, which have been instrumental in improving our manuscript. In response to your observation about the need to more precisely articulate our unique contribution to the field and differentiate our study from the broader academic discourse, we have incorporated a revised section in the text that emphasizes our added value.
Specifically, we have highlighted that our study not only analyzes the influence of various variables on the development of CCIs, but also explores the intersection between gender, ethnicity, and teaching competencies in faculty, an aspect little addressed in the extant literature. We believe that this perspective contributes significantly to the field by providing theoretically grounded evidence on how these variables interact to shape the development of CCIs. We also emphasize the relevance of our findings for the design of inclusive strategies in diverse educational contexts, thus offering new perspectives for teacher education in multicultural settings.