Decolonizing Academic Literacy with ተዋሕዶ/Tewahedo and Multiliteracies in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written article, and it addresses a critical issue in the context of higher education in South African universities. However, there are a couple of issues that the authors need to address before this article could be published:

1. This article focuses on a very specific context. However, considering the potential audience who might come from a different context, the authors need to connect the topic to a larger context to make the audience feel relatable;
2. In the methodology section, the authors claim to use a qualitative research approach, and later in this section, the authors mention two specific methods adopted in this article (i.e., systemic literature review and model-building method). I'm confused since both methods differ from a qualitative approach, and a systematic literature review is a specific methodological approach. The authors need to clarify the information;
3. The third major issue is about the organization. I'm so confused about the heading used in this article. Since it is a systematic review, the authors' review, analysis, and synthesis of the literature should be the findings of the study. Why are there two different sections for the literature review and findings? Besides, the authors need to be more explicit about how the literature relates to the problem/research gap addressed in this article. The connection is not very clear. In other words, when the authors argue about the significance of the problem addressed in this article, they need to provide relevant evidence and clearly bridge the evidence with their arguments; 
4. I find some repetitive information (e.g., the nature of Tewahedo ideology is repetitively mentioned in multiple paragraphs in the introductory section). The authors need to revise their article and remove or synthesize such information.

Author Response

The revised draft addresses the concerns by emphasizing globalization alongside the African perspective, ensuring relevance for a diverse audience. It clarifies the qualitative methodology, framing the systemic literature review and model-building as interpretive strategies that align with qualitative traditions. The organization is streamlined, integrating the literature review and findings to highlight how Tewahedo addresses epistemic dislocation and fosters inclusivity in global academic contexts. Repetitive discussions of Tewahedo’s principles are synthesized into concise summaries, focusing on their application to multiliteracies and communal learning. Finally, stronger connections are drawn between the reviewed literature and the research problem, using evidence like epistemic coloniality and Indigenous Knowledge Systems to underscore the transformative potential of Tewahedo in decolonizing academic literacy globally.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Strength

• This research aims to address very important issue of indigenous epistemologies and their relevance in shaping African curricular philosophy. Moreover, the author’s intention to apply the Ethiopia Tewahedo epistemology to the apparent South African pedagogical ailment is fascinating. The emphasis of the piece on African epistemologies, especially, the idea of multiliteracies is its main strength. According to the author, rooting educational system in indigenous epistemologies can foster a warm and communal learning sphere where students can thrive, and the Tewahedo epistemology, as the author argues, can provide a viable example of how indigenous epistemologies supported by multiliteracy can help to achieve an inviting learning sphere.

Areas to be addressed:

• Applying Tewahedo epistemology to educational challenge (i.e., alienation) in South African Universities requires some re-interpretation to fit into South African cultural reality. Some categories of Tewahedo theology might not be directly transferable. Therefore, the author needs to clearly show how this is done.
• The concept of Tewahedo – which is laden with heavy Christological nuances – might not directly fit into the “unity” that the author is seeking to amply in their pedagogical philosophy. What the author seems to be closer to Gadamerian conception of the “fusion of horizons”. Therefore, as a matter of comparing with the Western epistemic categories, it would be interesting if the author compares Gadamerian epistemology to that of the Tewahedo.
• If the author considers the Tewahedo epistemology of Sem-ena-Werq (or wax and gold tradition) there is an element of duality, not integrality. The author, therefore, needs to show how this can be overcome.
• Qeddasse is often performed in Ge’ez language which is not accessible for lay people. However, the community plays a role in performing it based on, not understanding, but belief. The weakness and strength of this needs to be articulated from epistemic point of view.
• The author has not engaged very important Ethiopian voices (literature, i.e. Messay Kebede, Mohammed Girma and Maimire Mennasemay) on this subject in his literature review.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

The revised manuscript deliberately frames Tewahedo epistemology as a secular and academic framework, focusing on its application to educational and multiliteracies contexts rather than adopting a spiritual or religious perspective. While acknowledging the inherent integration of physical and spiritual dimensions in Tewahedo, the author has intentionally avoided exploring its spiritual aspects to align with the study’s focus on academic literacy development in higher education.

 

Key Ethiopian epistemes such as Fǝlǝsǝft (exegesis), Qeddase (liturgy), Qiné (ቅኔ) , and Sem-ena-Werq (ሰም እና ወርቅ), as well as  manuscript traditions are emphasized for their relevance to communal learning, critical thinking, and knowledge production. These concepts, supported by insights from Messay Kebede and Maimire Mennasemay, highlight Tewahedo’s potential to foster inclusivity and transformative learning environments globally.

 

Revisions have clarified the content, addressed ambiguities, and eliminated redundancies to ensure coherence and accessibility for a global audience. The manuscript now better balances African perspectives with universal relevance, making it applicable to diverse educational contexts worldwide.

I am willing to make further modifications; please accept apologies for unintentional oversights. 

Thank you for your guidance and support throughout this process.

 

Sincerely,

Oscar Eybers

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issue addressed in this article is situated in a very specific context, and I'm sure it is a very significant issue to the local students. However, I can still see how it can be related to a broader context and audience.

1. Although the authors mention that the topic of the article is "with global relevance," they do not provide sufficient evidence to prove it. In academic writing, claims and statements need to be supported with evidence;
2. In this article, the authors refer to a large amount of literature. However, the main argument of this article is to legitimize Tewahedo as a framework to revisualize academic literacy in higher education in South Africa. However, the authors do not provide enough evidence from relevant literature to support such an argument. Most of the literature cited in the study only supports the existence of the issue of epiostemic dislocation, which is not directly related to the main argument of the article. More evidence is needed to support the main claim and argument of the article. 
3. I'm still confused about the nature of this article and found it hard to follow when reading. The authors claim that they adopted a qualitative study approach, and the structure of this article pertains more to empirical studies. However, according to the content, the authors have done a systematic literature review, which is a whole different genre from empirical studies. 

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise my manuscript. While the feedback from the last reviewer was limited, I took this as an opportunity to refine the text further. Specifically, I have adjusted the focus to be more global rather than primarily centred on Africa. Additionally, I have removed the reference to model building, as it was unclear how the absence of quantitative data was linked to the use of a quantitative method.

I appreciate your time and consideration and remain open to any further revisions as needed. I look forward to your decision.

Best regards,
Oscar