Challenge and Opportunity? Arab Teachers’ Perspectives on Teacher Training in a Hebrew-Speaking Program

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report: Challenge and Opportunity? Arab Teachers’ Perspectives on Teacher Training in a Hebrew-Speaking Program.

 

A brief summary

This is a qualitative study which explored the experience of 12 Arab Teachers who completed their teacher training in a Hebrew Speaking program. The study explored contact theory in the light of the experience of the teachers and its potential to create social community improvements in relationships between groups. It explored challenges and benefits. It also provided some recommendations regarding better pedagogical practices which would promote inclusion, equality and multiculturalism.

General Concept Comments

The study is timely with the continued Arab Isreali conflict however its findings and impact are limited due to the small study population. In spite of this, some general recommendations for multicultural campuses were provided which could assist higher education programs in Isreal and other parts of the world. The literature review provides interesting contextual information.

Specific Comments.

The paper is well written and easy to read. It is written in a logical progression. Enough information is provided to understand the research.

Unless authors are well known or seminal in the field their names should be cited at the end of the sentence rather than the beginning.

Other comments

Lines 28,29 For people outside the cultural groups being explored it would be helpful to name the main challenges or at least flag that they are explored in detail further in the text.

Line 51,52 This statement needs a citation

Line 174 It would have been interesting to interview 12 matched Jewish students to gain a comparison of the experience from the other cultural group.

Line 208 This approach should have a citation.

Line 219 Where did the semi-structured interview come from? Who created it?

Line 225 Who developed the interview guide

Line 241 How many people were approached altogether

Table 1 It would be interesting to know why Rimel, Jinan and Amani are currently unemployed (by choice or not able to find employment)

Line 277 Given the challenges for Arab students it would help the reader if the reasons for them choosing the Hebrew Speaking program were included at the beginning of the results.

I wonder if Challenges and Benefits as mentioned in the abstract would be better terms than barriers and gains. For example 338. Elements of this section could not be described as barriers. But the influence of the mothers could be described as a challenge.

Lines 406 – 411 appear to be gains rather than barriers.

Lines 480 – 484 There is no quote to match this reflection

Line 493 I think this is Siwar not Sivar

Line 519 Could this not also be a catalyst for social change within the Isreali community as well?

Lines 544 – 546 This seems to contradict the previous statement that the reason was largely because their mothers suggested this program.

References

Overall, the referencing is very consistent. Mostly recent and relevant literature was cited. It would be helpful to future researchers or those interested in the topic to include dois or links for all of the documents where they are available. The following references need attention.

Links needed for references 4, 7, 56,

There appears to be some differences in translation for a couple of the references.

Reference 3 I could not find this book only one called The Nature of Prejudice.

References 8 and 58 appear to have different translations of their titles.

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewers for their careful reading, insightful comments, and constructive suggestions. Your feedback helped us clarify key points, strengthen the argument, and improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

Answers to reviewer (1)

Lines 28, 29 For people outside the cultural groups being explored it would be helpful to name the main challenges or at least flag that they are explored in detail further in the text.

 

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We revised Lines 28-29 to briefly name the key challenges addressed in this study (linguistic demands, socio-cultural integration, majority-minority power relations, identity and representation, and interethnic national tensions), and we noted that these are explored in detail later in the article.

 

Line 51,52 This statement needs a citation

Response: We have added two relevant sources.

Line 174 It would have been interesting to interview 12 matched Jewish students to gain a comparison of the experience from the other cultural group.

Response: Interesting idea, thank you. At the end of the discussion section, we recommended future research that could compare the training experience of Arab and Jewish female students to identify differences between the groups

Comment (Line 208): “This approach should have a citation.”

Response: Thank you. We added an additional methodological reference to support the qualitative-phenomenological approach described in the Methodology section, alongside the existing sources. This strengthens the grounding of our design choice.

 

 

Comment (Line 219): “Where did the semi-structured interview come from? Who created it?”

Response: We clarified that the semi-structured interview protocol was developed by the research team specifically for this study, based on the research question and the relevant literature on semi-structured interviewing and phenomenological inquiry. We also specified the process used to refine the protocol (e.g., expert review and pilot testing, if applicable).

Comment (Line 225): “Who developed the interview guide?”

Response: We explicitly stated who developed the interview guide (e.g., first author drafted; co-authors reviewed and refined) and added a brief description of how it was constructed (main domains, linkage to theory and research questions).

 

 

Comment (Line 241): How many people were approached altogether

Response: Thank you for this comment. We have clarified the recruitment process by adding the total number of individuals approached, the number who agreed to participate, and the number who declined or did not respond. This information has now been added to the Participants/Recruitment subsection (Line 241).

Table 1 It would be interesting to know why Rimel, Jinan and Amani are currently unemployed (by choice or not able to find employment)

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that this detail adds important context, and we have clarified the reasons for the three participants’ current unemployment status. At the time of the interview, three participants (Rimel, Jinan, and Amani) were not employed: two reported personal circumstances (caregiving responsibilities and further studies), and one reported difficulties finding a teaching position. This information is presented in aggregate to protect anonymity.

Line 277 Given the challenges for Arab students it would help the reader if the reasons for them choosing the Hebrew Speaking program were included at the beginning of the results.

Response: Thank you. We agree that readers would benefit from understanding participants’ motivations for choosing the Hebrew-speaking program before engaging with the results on their experiences. We therefore added a short introductory subsection at the beginning of the Results that summarizes the main reasons reported by participants (e.g., professional opportunities, program quality/availability, prestige, pedagogical resources, and integration goals).

 

 

I wonder if Challenges and Benefits as mentioned in the abstract would be better terms than barriers and gains. For example 338. Elements of this section could not be described as barriers. But the influence of the mothers could be described as a challenge.

Response: We also appreciate the suggestion regarding terminology. To better align with the abstract and to avoid labeling all factors as “barriers,” we revised our wording throughout the Results from “barriers and gains” to “challenges and benefits,” and we adjusted subheadings and several sentences accordingly. For example, we now frame mothers’ influence as a contextual challenge and reserve “barrier” only for instances clearly described as structural or institutional constraints.

Lines 406 – 411 appear to be gains rather than barriers.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We agree that Lines 406-411 describe benefits rather than barriers. We therefore revised the Results section to clearly distinguish challenges from benefits, added a transition sentence introducing the benefits within the intergroup dimension, and reframed the passage accordingly. The revised text now presents these outcomes as reported benefits of intercultural interaction ensuring consistent terminology.

Lines 480 – 484 There is no quote to match this reflection

Response: Thank you for this comment. To ensure that all interpretations are directly grounded in the presented excerpts, we removed the reference to Jinan from this section, as it was not accompanied by a supporting quotation in the manuscript.

Line 493 I think this is Siwar not Sivar

Response: Thank you very much for your attention.

Line 519 Could this not also be a catalyst for social change within the Isreali community as well?

Response: Thank you. We agree with the comment because the implications may also contribute to change in Israeli society as a whole.

Lines 544 – 546 This seems to contradict the previous statement that the reason was largely because their mothers suggested this program.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the current wording may create an impression of contradiction. We clarified the text to show that these are complementary motivations. Indeed, the mothers had a great influence on their choice of the Hebrew-speaking track. Along with this, they also had personal and professional aspirations, a desire to integrate into the labor market, and to fit into the majority society.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article does not talk much about status of multilingualism in a politically sensitive region, rather talks much about the ramifications of the narratives of the dominant language influence, which is due to Hebrew language.   All of the participants of the questionnaire seem to talk much about how they tend to adhere to the rules proposed by the dominant language group and how they yield to them in one way or the other.  What would be relevant for this type of article is that how Arabs and Hebrew learners tend to maintain both of these languages by the teachers.  Cf. The research tool used in this study was the semi-structured interview, designed to explore the participants’ inner world and deepen the understanding of their personal interpretations of the studied phenomenon (line 219-220). Instead of understanding their personal interpretations, which mostly talk about how they yield to the dominant language contexts.  Rather a discussion of the status of multiculturalism and multilingualism emerged as a result of the continued tension between these two groups.   I would assume the dominant language community imposes the Hebrew language on the minority group and as a result the loss of cultural or linguistic features of minority culture, which is Arab, has taken place.  I would rather expect more discussion along these lines rather than presenting the participants' views, which are mostly obvious.  This article can be improved by focusing more on the status of multiculturalism and multilingualism in Israel and discuss on the nature of loss of the minority community's privileges and gain of the dominant community's impositions.  Discussion in Haj-Yehia et al., 2021 on lines 161 - 165 may be relevant here in the context of adaptations to dominant language.  Discussion on adaptations to dominant language group by the minority language group may be of relevant. 

Author Response

Challenge and Opportunity? Arab Teachers’ Perspectives on Teacher Training in a Hebrew-Speaking Program

Thank you to the reviewers for their careful reading, insightful comments, and constructive suggestions. Your feedback helped us clarify key points, strengthen the argument, and improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer Comment:

This article does not talk much about status of multilingualism in a politically sensitive region, rather talks much about the ramifications of the narratives of the dominant language influence, which is due to Hebrew language.   All of the participants of the questionnaire seem to talk much about how they tend to adhere to the rules proposed by the dominant language group and how they yield to them in one way or the other.  What would be relevant for this type of article is that how Arabs and Hebrew learners tend to maintain both of these languages by the teachers.  Cf. The research tool used in this study was the semi-structured interview, designed to explore the participants’ inner world and deepen the understanding of their personal interpretations of the studied phenomenon (line 219-220). Instead of understanding their personal interpretations, which mostly talk about how they yield to the dominant language contexts.  Rather a discussion of the status of multiculturalism and multilingualism emerged as a result of the continued tension between these two groups.   I would assume the dominant language community imposes the Hebrew language on the minority group and as a result the loss of cultural or linguistic features of minority culture, which is Arab, has taken place.  I would rather expect more discussion along these lines rather than presenting the participants' views, which are mostly obvious.  This article can be improved by focusing more on the status of multiculturalism and multilingualism in Israel and discuss on the nature of loss of the minority community's privileges and gain of the dominant community's impositions.  Discussion in Haj-Yehia et al., 2021 on lines 161 - 165 may be relevant here in the context of adaptations to dominant language.  Discussion on adaptations to dominant language group by the minority language group may be of relevant. 

Response:

Thank you for this important response. We appreciate the suggestion to strengthen the manuscript by focusing more explicitly on the status of multiculturalism and linguistics in Israel and on the asymmetrical power relations between majority and minority groups, including the nature of minority “loss” and majority “coercion” in Hebrew-dominant academic contexts. In response, we have re-edited the manuscript to refine the analysis across all four domains (linguistic, personal-professional, socio-cultural, and inter-ethnic-national). Specifically, we have expanded and refined the discussion of how the cultural and linguistic repertoires of the minority group are situated in relation to the norms of the dominant group, in order to make majority-minority gaps and structural asymmetries more visible throughout the findings and interpretation.

In the linguistic domain, we have strengthened our approach to multilingualism as occurring within a hierarchy of language status, in which Hebrew functions as a maintenance mechanism for academic participation and professional legitimacy, while Arabic is often less visible and less institutionally valued. We have also added a clearer discussion of how participants describe not only adaptation to Hebrew norms, but also efforts to maintain Arabic alongside Hebrew, and the unequal conditions under which multilingualism is practiced (lines 578-595).

In the personal-professional domain, we have softened the interpretation of “gains” such as professional security and career opportunities by placing them in the context of an unequal structure in which success is often tied to adherence to dominant norms. This clarification highlights how the advancement of minority students often involves additional burdens, expectations, and identity negotiations that are not equally demanded of the majority group (lines 597-603, 618-622).

In the sociocultural domain, we further emphasized how the program’s curriculum and implicit cultural assumptions prioritize majority knowledge and practices (e.g., Jewish cultural canon and norms of classroom participation), while minority cultural knowledge is less recognized as an equally valuable asset. Therefore, we reframed several participant accounts as reflecting not only “personal gaps,” but also epistemic and cultural asymmetries that shape belonging in the training environment. We also added to the discussion some ideas for narrowing the gap between these two societies (lines 650-641).

In the interethnic-national realm, we have strengthened the discussion of the costs that minority students may incur in conflict environments, including experiences of “otherness,” the need to manage emotions and legitimacy, and the limited space for authentic political expression. This helps to clarify how multicultural engagement may remain constrained when it develops under unequal and politically charged conditions (lines, 667-661).

Following the reviewer’s recommendation, we have explicitly anchored our interpretation in Haj Yahya et al. (2021) by adding a paragraph that frames the learning of Hebrew among Arab students as an adaptation to dominant linguistic norms shaped by structural segregation and limited exposure—while positioning language acquisition not only as skill development but also as a sociopolitical negotiation (lines 595-592)..

We believe that these revisions strengthen the manuscript by moving beyond a descriptive account of participants' experiences and offering a more explicit analysis of multilingualism and multiculturalism as shaped by structural inequality, highlighting the uneven distribution of expectations, accommodations, and recognition between majority and minority groups in higher education in Israel.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is much improved from the earlier version with additional clarity and illustrations.  I think this version can be published because it offers a dialogue on language status in terms of minority versus dominance in a speech situation, and its impact on teacher training as well as language education.  The author has taken much effort to rethink the idea in a much deeper way and hence it can be published.