Palestinian Arab undergraduate students’ transition to Israeli higher education: a mixed methods study

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the experiences of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel (PAI) on entering Israeli higher education (HE). Adopting a sequential exploratory mixed methods design, seven online focus groups (n = 19) were conducted, followed by an online survey (n = 453). The findings indicate that PAI students experience academic, physical, social and cultural disorientation upon entering HE. This disorientation transforms with time into a persistent feeling of lagging behind others. Three structural barriers appear to impede PAI students’ progress in HE: language, age and finances – all manifestations of larger systematic discrimination faced by PAIs in Israel. PAI students deal with these challenges by turning to one another for support and forming groups on campus. Variations across gender, parental education and institution type are explored. The paper concludes by discussing practical implications and future research directions.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher education
• transition
• Israel
• Arab-Palestinian minority
• mixed methods

Introduction

There is growing recognition among researchers that students’ early experiences in higher education (HE) have a crucial impact on their persistence and academic success later on (Lowe and Cook 2003; Baber 2012). Ensuring a successful transition to HE for students from underrepresented minority groups (URM) is especially important given their disproportionately lower persistence rates (Seidman 2005). Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel (PAI) are one such group. Using mixed methods, this paper sought to investigate the experiences of PAI undergraduate students during their transition to Israeli HE, and how their transition impacted the rest of their academic journey.

Transition to higher education

Students’ transition to HE is a ‘complex, multidimensional … entangled, nonlinear, iterative and recursive process,’ broadly encapsulating the period between graduating from high school and the end of the first year at university or college (Taylor and Harris-Evans 2018, 1256). This transition is multi-layered, as students navigate a new academic environment, living arrangements, social connections and an increased sense of independence (Pittman and Richmond 2008).

While navigating the transition to HE is difficult for all students, URM students face additional barriers such as discrimination, lack of family support, financial difficulties and little familiarity with the assumptions, values and expectations of HE (i.e. the hidden curriculum) (Devlin 2010; Dika and D’Amico 2016). In the case of students of colour, Carter, Locks, and Winkle-Wagner (2013) outline three main barriers to a successful transition to HE: financial barriers, academic under-preparedness and negative racial climates at predominantly White institutions.

Traditional understandings of the challenges facing URM students have often adopted a deficit perspective that presupposes that a successful transition to HE is primarily the individual student’s responsibility, and thus positions the students as the problem (Castro 2014). A deficit lens attributes unequal educational outcomes to ‘cultural stereotypes, inadequate socialisation, or lack of motivation and initiative on the part of the students’ (Bensimon 2005, 102). In practice, this lens is demonstrated by the various institutional efforts to induct students into HE through time-bonded, skills-based interventions that focus solely on enhancing students’ ability to persist (Fogarty et al. 2018).

Critics of deficit perspectives highlight the inequalities that URM students face before and upon entering HE and their impact on their experiences. They argue that it is harmful to expect students to fit into the existing institutional dominant structures and that institutions should seek to change these structures in order to support their diverse student bodies (Zepke and Leach 2007).

While agreeing with the importance of transforming institutional cultures and challenging deficit discourses, Devlin (2013) noted that students are not passive recipients in HE systems, but have the agency to challenge them. Therefore, she argues that deficit models, whether of the students or the institutions, are limited, and offers the concept of sociocultural incongruity as a more useful way to frame this issue. Drawing on Bourdieu’s (1985) notion of cultural capital, Devlin argues that students from dominant groups are more likely to have a ‘reservoir of cultural and social resources’ that help them to navigate academic spaces which URM students often do not have (Devlin 2013, 940). Socio-cultural incongruence, then, refers to the spaces where URM students ‘engage with the discourses, tacit expectations and norms of [the culture of] higher education … [which is] incongruous with the cultures with which they are familiar and comfortable’ (945).

Along similar lines, Yosso (2005) argues that HE systems are constructed in a way that rewards cultural capital that is possessed by the dominant group, yet devalues those of marginalised communities. Examples include what she terms aspirational capital, which is ‘the ability to maintain hope and dreams for the future, even in the face of real and perceived barriers’, and linguistic capital, which refers to ‘the intellectual and social skills attained through communication experiences in more than one language and/or style’ (77–78). Therefore, a student’s ability to navigate the transition to HE is heavily influenced by the cultural capital they possess and whether it is valued by the culture of the institution they attend (O’Donnell, Kean, and Stevens 2016).

Palestinian Arab undergraduate students in Israeli higher education

Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel

Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel (PAI) are an indigenous ethnonational minority of the country, comprising a fifth of its population (Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics 2019). Their identity comprises, at least, four components, including ethnicity (Arab), nationality (Palestinian), citizenship (Israeli), and religion (Muslim, Christian or Druze) (Rudnitzky and Radai 2017). The tension between these components (i.e. that PAIs are citizens of a country that is at war with their national group) leads to a hostile treatment of PAIs by the Israeli establishment, and they are often perceived as a demographic threat or a ‘fifth column’ undermining the state (Smooha 2002; Jabareen 2014).

Despite being full citizens of Israel, PAIs are systematically discriminated against in all aspects of life, whereby successive Israeli governments have adopted a policy of non-development and marginalisation of PAI localities, resulting in poor social, economic and health conditions (Hesketh et al. 2011; Lewin-Epstein and Semyonov 2019). PAIs are overrepresented in the lowest socioeconomic tiers in Israel, and 45% of PAI families live under the poverty line (Haddad Haj-Yahya et al. 2022).

Consequently, PAIs are strongly motivated to acquire HE as it is perceived to be one of the main, if not the only, tool for advancement in a hostile, unstable environment (Al-Haj 2003; Arar and Mustafa 2011). However, this is hindered by several systematic barriers, as discussed in the next section.

Access to higher education: systematic barriers

First, the dire state of PAI communities following decades of neglect seriously impedes their socioeconomic progress. Weak infrastructure and public transportation, suffocated localities, and loss of personal safety are all examples of the deliberate failure of successive Israeli governments to promote the welfare of PAIs (Adalah 2017; Green 2021).

Second, the Arabic-speaking K-12 education track has been historically underfunded while being kept under surveillance, leading to outdated, weak schools with disproportionately lower educational outcomes (Abu Asabeh 2018; Blass 2018).

Third, two of the major requirements for HE admission have been shown to disadvantage PAIs: the psychometric exam has a significant cultural bias in its content and method, and the Yael exam, which tests students’ command of Hebrew, poses an additional burden in terms of time and effort (Arar and Mustafa 2011; Adalah 2016).

Last, the vast majority of HE institutions (and all of the research universities) are located in Jewish-majority localities and are thus less accessible for PAIs.

Despite these barriers, PAIs are entering Israeli HE institutions at record rates, doubling their number in the last decade and they now comprise 17% of all undergraduate students (Council for Higher Education Israel 2019).

Challenges in higher education

The current evidence points to a few prominent challenges that PAI students face in Israeli HE. First, students face linguistic difficulties, transitioning from an Arabic-speaking education track to university campuses teaching in Hebrew and course reading materials often in English (Al-Haj 2003). Second, PAIs usually come from significantly poorer backgrounds and face difficulties financing their studies with limited external financial support available to them (Abraham Initiatives 2016). Third, students encounter difficulties in adapting to the academic environment that is usually not culturally and religiously sensitive to them, leading to significant acculturative stress (Hager and Jabareen 2016; Abu Kaf and Khalaf 2020). Lastly, the political context plays an important role in the experiences of PAI students, as many report encountering discrimination on campus, primarily by other students (Abraham Initiatives 2016). Furthermore, mainly in social sciences and humanities, the taught material is often laden with Zionist discourses and military-related language is frequently employed, thereby alienating PAIs (Sa’di-Ibraheem 2021).

Recent evidence points to some variations between PAI students, but they have not yet been meaningfully investigated. For example, more PAI women are entering HE than men, and they are more likely to persist in their studies (Imariyyeh and Kril 2019). Additionally, there is growing recognition in Israel that first-generation status is a key factor in educational inequalities (Yamini, Arnon, and Mizrahi 2023). However, the way it intersects with other social categories, such as ethno-nationality, is still underexplored.

To summarise, while previous evidence has identified some aspects of PAI students’ experiences, there are still gaps in the literature. Generally speaking, the current evidence is either limited to certain institutions (e.g. Sa’di-Ibraheem 2021), unclear about its methods (e.g. Abraham Initiatives 2016), or does not address students directly (e.g. Hager and Jabareen 2016). Moreover, it treats PAI students as a monolith group and does not meaningfully investigate differences between them. Thus, this study sought to explore the experiences of PAI students during their transition to Israeli HE, how structural barriers impact their progress, and whether there are variations in their experiences based on their gender, parental education, or the type of institution they attend.

Methods

This study adopted a sequential exploratory mixed methods research design beginning with a qualitative phase that shaped the following quantitative phase, such that the integration of the two forms a whole larger than the sum of its parts (Fetters and Freshwater 2015; Creswell and Plano Clark 2017).

In the first phase, online focus groups were conducted to explore PAI undergraduate students’ experiences in HE. Informed by the qualitative findings, a survey instrument was developed and piloted. The second phase then sought to examine the generalisability of the qualitative findings and explore potential variations among PAI students using the survey instrument. Both phases received ethical approval from the Department of Social Policy and Intervention at the University of Oxford (References: C1A_20_004; C1A_21-22_007).

Researcher positionality & reflexivity

I believe that, as Guba and Lincoln (1989, 88) assert, it is ‘impossible to separate the inquirer from the inquired into,’ and thus, it is important to consider my positionality as an insider researcher conducting research within a social and cultural group of which I am a member (Greene 2014). My choice of topic, question framing and analysis are all influenced by my identity as a female Palestinian Christian citizen of Israel and my experiences as an undergraduate student at the University of Haifa. While my ‘insider status’ grants me an understanding of the population and a relational ease with its members, it could also lead me to make wrong assumptions based on my own experiences, which might not reflect those of the participants. This was especially salient as I translated quotes from the focus groups from Arabic to English, as I had the power to construct the participants’ realities by choosing words that I believe reflect their own.

Therefore, I endeavoured to be reflexive throughout the research process by keeping a reflexive journal as well as meeting regularly with colleagues to talk through research decisions and recognise any unchecked assumptions. As for translations, I re-listened to the audio recordings as I translated to ensure that I remain as close as possible to the original context. Additionally, I consulted with colleagues regarding specific words and phrases that I found difficult to translate.

Qualitative phase

Participants

The first phase consisted of seven online focus groups that were conducted in the spring of 2021 on Zoom, with a total of nineteen participants. There were nine men and ten women, with an average age of 23 (SD = 2.7). Participants were at varying stages of their studies and came from different disciplines including psychology, engineering, nursing, law and accounting.

Institutional gatekeepers (e.g. student leaders, university staff) at the six largest universities in Israel were contacted to assist in participant recruitment through their networks. Participants had to be full-time university students in their second year or above or to have graduated in the last five years and they also had to identify as Arab/Palestinian. Druze students and academic college students were excluded at this stage due to time constraints. Potential participants were sent an information sheet which they were asked to confirm reading and indicate their informed consent. Participation in the study was acknowledged with a 60NIS voucher for a local coffeeshops chain.

Data collection and analysis

The protocol for the focus groups was designed using Billups’ (2019) guidelines and was piloted before data collection to ensure clarity and coherence. The focus groups were semi-structured, conducted in Arabic, and lasted about an hour. The questions focused on the participants’ experiences at university, specifically their thoughts and feelings during their first semester, how they coped with the transition, and how it influenced the rest of their academic journey.

The focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive, data-based approach was adopted for the analysis, using the six phases of thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), as well as the guidelines by Saldaña (2013) on coding. MaxQDA-2020 Analytics Pro was used for the analysis.

Several steps were taken throughout the research process to ensure the trustworthiness of the analysis, informed by the guidelines set forth by Nowell and colleagues (2017): the qualitative data was read multiple times before any coding was conducted so that all aspects of the data are considered; the reflexive journal mentioned previously was used to record initial and evolving thoughts throughout the waves of coding, leaving an audit trail; a summary of the analysis was sent to the participants for feedback (i.e. member checking); and a thick description of the findings’ context is provided. Additionally, the mixed-methods design adopted aimed to triangulate data sources and bolster the overall credibility of the findings.

Quantitative phase

Survey instrument

Based on the themes identified in the first phase, a survey instrument was developed aiming to explore the prevalence of the qualitative findings and their generalisability across various groups. To ensure that the items meet the content, cognitive and usability standards as outlined by Groves and colleagues (2009, 561:259), two expert reviews were sought and a pilot was carried out to a sample of ten people who meet the eligibility criteria. Following the feedback, the questionnaire was shortened and minor linguistic revisions were made. The questionnaire can be found in appendix 1.

The questionnaire was administered in Arabic and consisted of four sections: (a) sociodemographic and academic characteristics, (b) transition to HE, (c) student experience on campus, and (d) perception of institutional support. The last three sections comprised predominantly Likert items on a 5-point agreement scale. Only the findings from the first three parts of the questionnaire are presented as part of the current paper.

Data collection

The eligibility criteria for the quantitative phase were broader than that of the qualitative phase and included all current full-time PAI undergraduate students and recent graduates (up to five years of graduation). This included Druze students and academic college students.

The survey was open to responses online in March and April 2022 using the Qualtrics platform. Respondents were provided with information about the study and were required to indicate their informed consent to participate before proceeding to the questionnaire. Respondents were not asked to provide any identifying data (e.g. email address) and thus remained anonymous. The questionnaire took between 10 and 15 min to complete.

Due to a lack of an accessible sampling frame, this survey involved a non-probability volunteer sample. Thus, following best practice guidelines, survey recruitment channels were diverse to broaden the spread of the sample (Vehovar, Toepoel, and Steinmetz 2016). First, student deans or Arab student coordinators at the largest twenty-nine Israeli HE institutions were contacted via email to request assistance in distributing the survey. One follow-up email was sent in the case of non-response. Eleven institutions agreed to distribute the survey to their students. Second, two educational organisations were contacted, one of which disseminated the survey through their network. Last, sixteen student groups on Facebook were targeted for advertisement where a link to the survey was posted twice.

Participants

Five hundred responses to the survey were recorded, 453 of which met the eligibility criteria. Three-quarters (73.9%) of the sample were women and the rest (25.3%) were men. The average age was 23.3 (SD = 4.21) with half being between the ages of 20 and 23. Respondents came from 73 different localities, the largest group being from Nazareth (22.9%). Over half of the respondents were Muslim (54.3%), a third were Christian (33.3%) and 7.7% were Druze.

The respondents studied at 33 different HE institutions, with over half (57.1%) studying at universities. Almost half (48.5%) of respondents were first-generation students, defined as having two parents without an academic qualification. The full demographic and academic characteristics of the sample and the corresponding population statistic where available can be found in appendix 2.

Data analysis

All analysis was conducted using R version 4.2. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the relevant items. Based on existing evidence, gender, parental education and type of institution (i.e. research university or academic college) were chosen as the key independent variables. Differences between subgroups were examined for statistical significance using χ² tests. Due to the non-probability nature of the sample, the results of the inferential analysis should be treated with caution. Following the framework advanced by Mirzaei et al. (2022), the percentage of missing data was calculated and classified. Multiple imputations were chosen as the optimal method to handle missing data.

Findings

The findings of both phases of the study are organised topically to provide a comprehensive overall picture based on the two main themes identified in the focus groups: first, the feeling of disorientation as students transitioned to HE; and second, the persistent feeling of lagging behind, which was attributed to three structural barriers – language, age and finances.

Transition to higher education: disorientation and resilience

Participants expressed a sense of disorientation upon their transition to HE, which manifested in several ways: academic, physical, and cultural/social.

Academic disorientation

All participants in the focus groups highlighted the fact that studying at university is significantly different from high school. They had to adapt to a new method of teaching and revising, which caused them to feel overwhelmed with a pervasive feeling that they ‘are always missing something’. While this may not be unique to PAI students, it was raised in every focus group and appears to be a key aspect of the participants’ experiences.

The intensity and pace of HE were highlighted as particularly challenging, as one student described:

The transition from school was a very big one. In school it was easy, I didn't study other than during exams. Suddenly you come to university and every week there are assignments, not only one but four. And if you miss one they pile up. So academically it was very difficult and demanding. The standard is very high.

The academic disorientation was often accompanied by a sense of emotional turmoil, as students worked to adapt to the environment around them. One student shared:

… I felt like the first semester was all tears. I couldn’t understand where I am … I, I didn’t know how we are supposed to move between classes. Everything was jumbled, everything was different than it was in high school, how it was in the Bagrut [Israel’s matriculation exams]. I also saw that many people dropped out, and I was scared that I would drop out too.

These findings were confirmed in the survey data. Eighty percent of survey respondents reported feeling anxious about their academic progress during their first semester, and 71% felt scared of dropping out. Specifically, while 67% felt that they understood what was said in class, only 41% felt confident asking and answering questions.

As for variations between men and women, a larger percentage of women than men reported being anxious about their academic progress during their transition to HE (85.1% and 67% respectively; x² = 24.143, df = 3, p < 0.001), as well as being scared of dropping out in their first semester (74% and 64% respectively; x² = 12.479, df = 3, p < 0.01). In terms of parental education, 49.5% of first-generation students said they were confident asking and answering questions in class, compared to 33% of continuing-generation students (x² = 17.82, df = 3, p < 0.005). As for differences between types of institutions, 49% of college students said they were confident asking and answering questions in class, compared to 35% of university students (x² = 13.85, df = 3, p < 0.001). Furthermore, a larger proportion of college students felt confident expressing their opinions in class compared to university students (45% and 30% respectively; x² = 11.67, df = 3, p < 0.01).

Physical disorientation

As there are currently no universities in PAI cities and only a handful of colleges, many PAI students have to move out of their hometowns to pursue their studies in a Jewish-majority city. Consequently, they are often not only adjusting to a new academic environment but also to a new city. One participant who moved from her home village in Galilee (i.e. the periphery) to Bar-Ilan University (i.e. the centre) explained this transition:

In the beginning, the challenge was the distance from home … I was 19 years old and alone among my Jewish classmates, and now coming to the centre while I had lived in the North my whole life. The first time I took a public bus was when I came to university.

The quantitative findings reveal a more complex picture. Two-thirds of the survey sample (68%) moved to a new city as students, and of those, 70% reported feeling comfortable in it, while simultaneously, 43% reported experiencing nationally or religiously motivated discrimination in the new city.

Social and cultural disorientation

For many PAI students, HE is their first experience of prolonged contact with the majority Jewish culture, due to the deep segregation that exists in Israel. Thus, the transition to HE can constitute a culture shock. One participant described this:

As a girl who has been in a village all her life, we were very far from people. We barely saw the world. Even when I worked, I didn't work somewhere that would introduce me to the world. I worked in a clothes shop and a hair salon. I didn't feel like I had many experiences. So when I first came to [the University of] Haifa, it was … I saw something that I wasn't used to seeing, and this might sound a bit primitive what I'm going to say, but in our [community/culture] if a girl and a guy are walking together people will look and start to talk. But here it was as if I went to another world, where it is normal to behave like this and no one will ask questions or say anything.

This participant’s statement ‘this might sound primitive’ demonstrates her awareness of how the university culture (i.e. Ashkenazi Jewish Israeli culture) perceives her home community’s traditions and values.

Another participant explored the emotions caused by this cultural shift:

I can sum it all up in one word: fear. I am entering a new experience and I’m very scared. When you are scared you are constantly worrying, and this reflects on everything you do. [You start to wonder] what do I wear, what do I do, where do I go, who will help me? All of this is fear. A new experience, fear of a new society, how will my Jewish classmates accept me?

Here, the participant identified how the actions of PAI students are infused by fear, which could be debilitating to them. Additionally, some participants described feeling lonely and finding it difficult to establish friendships during their first few months in HE. One participant said:

When I first entered university, I didn’t have any friends, so I felt that there were so many people around me, but at the same time, I felt very lonely. I spent the first week sitting in the library because I didn’t have anything to do, I didn’t know anyone.

Again, while this challenge is not unique to PAIs, I felt that it is important to include it as it was prominent in the discussions and is compounded by the culture shift students experience.

In the survey, 54% of respondents felt well-adjusted socially during their first semester in HE. There were no statistically significant differences between subgroups on this item.

‘Huddled around each other’: support from other PAI students

Students dealt with the different aspects of disorientation by forming groups with other PAI students in their courses. This was stark as all participants were quick to say how many other PAIs were in their course, without prompting. There seemed to be an unspoken assumption that the other PAIs in the classroom if they exist, are the ‘default’ option for friendships.

Participants felt validated in knowing that they were not the only ones feeling lost:

… We would leave the lecture and see that we are all, simply, in the same place, and that helps mentally. The Arabs, I mean. To see that everyone doesn’t understand what is happening, so we discovered things together. This is what built friendships … In our first semester, we studied for all the exams together … I couldn't have made it on my own.

The coming together of PAI students was a strong theme among participants. As they phrased it, ‘Arab students gathered/huddled around each other’. They felt that they were all facing similar challenges and that as a minority group, they needed to help one another succeed.

This was confirmed in the survey findings. Eighty-seven percent of respondents felt that their PAI classmates were dealing with similar challenges and 78% turned to their PAI classmates for support. There were no statistically significant differences between subgroups in this regard.

Lagging behind & structural barriers

‘Several steps behind’

After their first semester at university, participants in the focus groups expressed a persistent feeling that they were ‘several steps behind’ the rest of the students. In a telling exchange between two participants, they attributed this feeling to structural difficulties that exist for PAI students in the HE system:

I think that the experience of the Arab student is always different, in any academic setting … All Arab students face structural difficulties, difficulties that exist because we come from a particular background, not due to specific people’s [personal characteristics]. From the moment I started university I felt like I needed to prove that I am not less than any other Jewish student. I would always ignore the challenges, and wouldn’t acknowledge even to myself that I could be having difficulties … I eventually realised it’s wrong to deny reality … I now explain to [incoming] Arab students that there are difficulties we face like the language, age, environment, cultural differences – all these difficulties are structured for us as a society, not because we are less smart or less capable.

I agree that we come with built-in difficulties … It's like [other students] are already ten steps further than you, and [they're] also walking at a faster pace than you.

Along with acknowledging the sense of disadvantage, many participants were clear about feeling the need to fight the ‘victim mentality’, as one participant explained:

We have to work on ourselves, on our way of thinking … I don’t feel like the Jewish students are better than us [in terms of] our intellectual abilities, how smart we are. I feel like it stems from the way we think about ourselves as a minority group. We can prove ourselves wrong. We can get to high places if we just give ourselves space.

The survey findings reveal that after the initial shock during their transition to HE, students begin to feel better about their progress. 79% of respondents felt competent in their ability to persist to degree completion after the first semester, a clear improvement from the 71% who reported being scared of dropping out in their first semester. However, the feeling of lagging behind persisted, as only 33% of respondents felt that they were progressing at a pace similar to or faster than their Jewish-Israeli peers, compared with 78% who felt similarly about their PAI peers.

Structural barriers

Language

One of the main structural difficulties the students highlighted in all groups was language. All participants described Hebrew as a major hurdle in their adjustment to university, and a few mentioned English too. The participants demonstrated a nuanced understanding of how their levels of linguistic mastery affected their experiences in university. One participant shared the following:

I used to understand what was said in class but to share or speak up when I have a question, to feel totally at ease like my Jewish classmates- that was very difficult. It took a very long time for me to start speaking in class. Sometimes I would have a clear question that I would keep repeating in my mind before asking it [out loud].

However, it is important to highlight two points regarding this. First, participants who were taught by PAI lecturers found their Hebrew easier to understand, suggesting that the barrier might not be the language itself but the accent, pace and vocabulary. Second, some participants suggested that they felt more comfortable asking questions once they moved to remote learning, expressing a feeling of ‘liberation’ on Zoom, possibly because they could turn off their cameras. This suggests that the barrier to speaking in class might be related to the classroom’s physical environment and the psychological impact of that rather than mastery of the language.

In the survey, 44% of respondents felt that their language skills badly impacted their grades. Fifty-three percent felt that their Hebrew was strong enough for the academic environment, compared with 59% who felt similarly regarding their English skills.

As for differences across subgroups, a smaller proportion of first-generation students felt that their English was strong enough for the academic environment, compared with continuing-generation students (44.3% and 72.1% respectively, x² = 35.85, df = 3, p < 0.001).

Age

As PAIs are not legally required to conscript to the army at the age of 18 (except men in the Druze community), unlike Jewish-Israeli citizens, the vast majority of PAIs enter HE significantly younger. Most participants in the focus groups viewed their young age as a barrier to adapting to university life, saying:

I feel like the biggest obstacle for me is age. [My Jewish classmates] are so much older, so much more mature. I made stupid decisions when I first entered university. If I had been older I would have made different decisions. They knew themselves more, what they like and what they don't like, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. I didn't know these things about myself.

Consequently, some participants expressed a desire to enter HE at a later stage, even though societal and financial pressures often prevented them from doing so.

There was some consistency between the quantitative and the qualitative findings: Ninety percent of respondents began their studies between the ages of 18 and 21, and of those, 26.2% felt that being young was an obstacle for them and 32% wished that they had entered HE later than they did.

Finances

As previously discussed, PAIs as a population group are economically disadvantaged. This was reflected in the focus groups, as participants expressed anxiety over their financial situation and the difficulty of balancing work and study:

The financial issue – it’s a big challenge. You have to study and work [at the same time]. But as a first-year student, I don’t think you can work. There is so much to study … It’s an even bigger challenge if you don’t have supportive parents.

In the quantitative phase, over half of the respondents said that they experienced financial difficulties during their studies (54%) and that their financial situation caused them anxiety (50%). Simultaneously, 70% always or frequently had financial support from their family, 44% never or rarely had to work to finance their studies, and 60% never or rarely had to work to support their family.

As for differences across subgroups, men reported having to work significantly more during their studies than women, whether it is to finance their studies or support their families. First-generation students reported significantly more financial difficulties than continuing-generation students in all the relevant questionnaire items. For example, 49% of first-generation students never or rarely had to work during their studies to support their families, compared with 71% of continuing-generation students (x² = 25.33, df = 3, p < 0.001).

Discussion

This study set out to explore the experiences of PAI undergraduate students during their transition to HE, and the ways that structural barriers impact their academic journeys. The findings suggest that the transition to HE is marked by a sense of academic, physical and social/cultural disorientation. Prior evidence has noted some aspects of this transition: Al-Haj (2003), for example, identified the culture shock that PAI students feel upon entering HE campuses and the need to bridge between their home community and the HE community.

In the current study, women reported more academic difficulties than men, which, considering men’s lower rates of enrolment and higher rates of non-completion (Imariyyeh and Kril 2019), is of concern and should be explored further. Moreover, contrary to evidence from other contexts (Pascarella et al. 2004), continuing-generation students reported more academic difficulties than first-generation students. This could be partially explained by Daniel’s (2016) suggestion that while being a first-generation student from a minority group introduces additional difficulties, it could also serve as a driving force for students.

This study also found that to address these challenges, PAI students turn to one another for support. This complements the findings of Abraham Initiatives’ (2020) survey which found that PAI students feel a greater sense of belonging on campuses with a high number of other PAI students, and the positive association that Levi, Eyal, and Konstantinov (2019) found between the number of PAI students in an institution and completing a degree in the expected time.

The sense of disorientation appears to transform over time into a feeling of constantly lagging behind others. Three main structural barriers that impeded students’ progress were highlighted in the current study: language, age and finances. These barriers cannot be viewed in isolation from the discrimination that PAIs experience in Israel, but rather as manifestations of it. Age and language are not inherently barriers to success in HE, but the fact that the HE system is designed to cater to the typical (older, Hebrew-speaking) Jewish Israeli student, makes them so. This is apparent in how the CHE frames its efforts towards PAI students, viewing their mother-tongue and cultural values as obstacles to equal educational outcomes (Shaviv et al. 2013). This reflects a deficit, assimilationist discourse that pathologises PAI students and does not seek to change unequal HE systems (Fogarty et al. 2018; Ma’ayan 2019). Thus, this study views the challenges facing PAI students to be a failure of the Israeli HE system to celebrate and enrich PAI students’ unique capabilities. The financial challenge also cannot be divorced from the larger context of successive Israeli governments’ socioeconomic marginalisation and segregation of PAI localities, as well as the limited financial support available to PAI students and discriminatory financial assistance allocation mechanisms used by HE institutions (e.g. scholarships contingent on military service; Dagan-Buzaglo 2007).

Although this study has expanded the current understanding of PAI students’ experiences in HE, it is not without limitations. First, the COVID-19 pandemic cast its shadow over the entirety of the data collection period, in which lockdowns impacted students’ experiences in HE in ways that are still being explored. Second, due to a lack of an accessible sampling frame, the survey used a non-probability volunteer sample, that was then influenced by institutional decisions concerning cooperating with the survey distribution requests. While the diversification of recruitment channels was an attempt to minimise the problems associated with this, questions about the generalisability of the findings remain. However, it is important to note that this study’s findings are similar to others in the field, thereby supporting their validity. Third, as the survey was conducted online, respondents were unable to ask clarifying questions. However, the expert reviews and the piloting phase were both efforts to mitigate this.

The current study has several implications for policy, practice and research. First, it provides a framework for thinking about PAI students’ transition to Israeli HE when making policy or designing support programmes. Second, it provides evidence that many of the challenges faced by PAI students are the product of discriminatory practices in larger systems in Israel (e.g. Israel’s refusal to found a university in a PAI locality, forcing PAI students to move to Jewish-majority cities, causing physical disorientation and creating additional financial stress). Therefore, to effectively support students, systematic factors must be taken into account and, ultimately, dealt with. Third, this paper argues that the policymakers should view PAI students’ academic journeys holistically and in context, shifting their focus from simply assisting students in adapting to the reality of Israeli HE as it is today, to reimagining an academic space that empowers students from all backgrounds and is enriched by their presence. Processes of validation and acknowledging cultural wealth, as proposed by Rendón (1994) and Yosso (2005), could be useful in this process. Fourth, this study explored some variations among PAI students, and future research should investigate further to better understand how intersecting identities impact student experiences. Last, while this study focused on the Israeli context, it provides important insights about linguistic, cultural and socio-political nuances that may apply to other contexts as well.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Green Templeton College, University of Oxford through the CCFF fund, and the author is financially supported by the Rhodes Trust.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Full questionnaire

The following questions refer to your experiences in higher education. Some questions refer to your specific course. As some students undertake dual degrees or have changed their courses – please answer about the course you spent the most time in or is most typical of your experiences.

Section 1. Sociodemographic & academic information

Table

No	Item	Response format
1	Age	Numeric
2	Gender	Male, female, prefer not to say.
3	Hometown	Free text
4	Religious affiliation	Muslim, Christian, Druze, other, prefer not to say.
5	National definition	Arab, Israeli, Palestinian, Israeli citizen, other, prefer not to say (choose all that apply).
6	Academic institution	List of academic institutions recognised by CHE
7	Main language of instruction	Hebrew, English, Arabic.
8	Subject studied	Free text
9	Highest education level completed	High school, professional diploma, undergraduate, masters, doctorate, prefer not to say.
10	Type of high school qualification	Bagrut, Tawjihi, other.
11	Completion of undergraduate study	Yes, No – I stopped my studies before completion, No – I am currently still studying.
If answer to item 11 is currently studying
11a	Year of study	1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th and over.
12	Change of course during studies	Yes, no.
13	Father’s education level	Less than high school, high school, professional diploma, undergraduate, masters, doctorate, prefer not to say.
14	Mother’s education level

Section 2. Transition to higher education

Think of your first semester at university. To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statements?

Table

No	Item	Response format
1	‘I had a smooth transition to university’	Likert agreement scale (1–5): 1- Completely disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- I don’t agree or disagree, 4- Agree, 5- Completely agree, or not applicable to me/prefer not to answer.
2	‘I often felt lost’
3	‘I felt anxious about my academic progress’
4	‘I was scared of dropping out’
5	‘I understood what the requirements were for my classes’
6	‘The pace of learning in university was challenging for me’
7	‘I seriously thought about changing my course’
8	‘I knew where to find academic help if I needed it’
9	‘I understood what was said in class’
10	‘I felt confident to ask and answer questions in class’
11	‘I felt confident expressing my opinions in class’
12	‘I felt comfortable approaching my professors and tutors’
13	‘I felt well-adjusted socially’
14	‘I knew where to find psychological help if I needed it’
15	‘I leaned on my Arab classmates for support’
16	‘I felt like my Arab classmates were dealing with similar difficulties as me’
17	What is approximately the percentage of Arab students in your course?	<10, 10–20, 21–30, 31–40, 41–50, 51–60, 61–70, 71–80, 81–90, 90<
18	What is approximately the percentage of Arab students in your university?
19	Did you move out of your parents’ house to attend university?	Yes, no.
If yes to item 19 -
19a	Was this your first time living independently?	Yes, no.
20	Did you move to a new city in order to attend university?	Yes, no.
20a	‘I felt comfortable in the new city’	Likert agreement scale (1–5): 1- Completely disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- I don’t agree or disagree, 4- Agree, 5- Completely agree, or not applicable to me/prefer not to answer.
20b	‘It was easy to use public transportation to move between my hometown and the new city’
20c	‘The lifestyle of people in the new city was significantly different than that of people in my hometown’
20d	‘I experienced discrimination because of my ethnicity/nationality or religion in the new city’

Section 3. Student experience on campus

Think of your general experience at university (beyond the first semester). To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statements?

Table

No	Item	Response format
1	‘I felt competent in my ability to persist to degree completion’	Likert agreement scale (1–5): 1- Completely disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- I don’t agree or disagree, 4- Agree, 5- Completely agree, or not applicable to me/prefer not to answer.
2	‘I felt like I needed to prove myself (to my classmates, to my professors, to my family)’
3	‘I knew my rights as a student at university’
4	‘I felt that I progressed at a similar pace to my Arab classmates’	Likert pace scale (1–5): 1- Significantly slower, 2- Somewhat slower, 3- Similar pace, 4 - Somewhat faster, 5- Significantly faster, or not applicable to me/prefer not to answer.
5	‘I felt that I progressed at a similar pace to my Jewish classmates’
6	‘My language mastery badly impacted my grades/my performance’	Likert agreement scale (1–5): 1- Completely disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- I don’t agree or disagree, 4- Agree, 5- Completely agree, or not applicable to me/prefer not to answer.
7	‘I felt that my Hebrew was strong enough for the academic environment’
8	‘I felt that my English was strong enough for the academic environment’
9	‘I felt that my Hebrew was strong enough to establish friendships with my Jewish classmates’
10	‘I felt like I belonged on campus’
11	‘The campus was a friendly place to me’
12	‘The university is a fair place’
13	‘I experienced hostility/discrimination from lecturers/tutors because of my ethnicity/nationality or religious identity’
14	‘I experienced hostility/discrimination from administrative staff because of my ethnicity/nationality or religious identity’
15	‘I experienced hostility/discrimination from other students because of my ethnicity/nationality or religious identity’
16	‘I felt that university decisions are inclusive for all students’
17	‘I felt that my ethnicity/nationality identity is respected’
18	‘I felt that my religious identity is respected’
19	‘I have Jewish Israeli friends on campus’
20	‘I have completed a group/pair project with a Jewish Israeli classmate’
21	‘I would like to be friends with more Jewish Israeli students on campus’
22	‘I think there are opportunities to meet and become friends with Jewish Israeli students on campus’
23	‘There is a segregation between Arabs and Jews on campus’
24	‘I struggled financially during my time as a student’	Likert frequency scale (1–5): 1 – Never, 2 – Few and far between, 3- Sometimes, 4- Frequently, 5- Always, or not applicable to me/prefer not to answer.
25	‘I had to work during my time as a student to finance my studies’
26	‘I had to work during my time as a student to support my family’
27	‘I have financial support from my family’
28	‘My financial situation causes me anxiety’
29	Did you begin your academic studies between the ages of 18 and 21?	Yes, no.
If yes to item 29
29a	‘Most of my classmates were older than me’	Likert agreement scale (1–5): 1- Completely disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- I don’t agree or disagree, 4- Agree, 5- Completely agree, or not applicable to me/prefer not to answer.
29b	‘I felt pressured to enter university briefly after finishing high school’
29c	‘Being young was an obstacle for me at university’
29d	‘I was mature enough when I entered university’
29d	‘I wish I entered university later than I had’

Section 4. Institutional support

Many academic institutions offer support for Arab students. What support does your university/department offer? Select all that apply and rank their importance of it to your experience.

Table

No	Item	Response format
1	Extra time during assessments for non-native Hebrew speakers	Select if it applies and Likert importance scale (1–5): 1- Very unimportant, 2- Unimportant, 3- Neutral, 4- Important, 5- Very important, or not applicable to me/prefer not to answer.
2	Peer mentors
3	Faculty mentors
4	Tutoring sessions with a Hebrew-speaker
5	Tutoring sessions with an Arabic-speaker
6	Summer-bridge prep course
7	Scholarships
8	Low-interest loans
9	Career advice
10	Other: specify	Free text

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Table

No	Item	Response format
1	‘I know what university support is available for me and how to access it’	Likert agreement scale (1–5): 1- Completely disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- I don’t agree or disagree, 4- Agree, 5- Completely agree, or not applicable to me/prefer not to answer.
2	‘I feel like the support is beneficial for me’
3	‘I feel like the support is beneficial for other Arab students’
4	‘I feel like the university understands my needs as an Arab student’
5	‘I made use of the university support during my time as a student’
6	‘I would have appreciated more academic support’
7	‘I would have appreciated more financial support’
8	‘I would have appreciated more emotional/social support’
9	‘I feel that the university is sincere in its attempt to support Arab students’
10	‘I feel pitied by the university’
11	‘I feel that the support is enough to give an equal opportunity for Arab students to succeed/thrive/realise their potential’

Appendix 2. Sociodemographic and academic characteristics of the survey sample with corresponding population statistics.

Table

Variable	Category	% population* (2020/21)**	% sample
Gender	Men	32.6%	25.3%
	Women	67.4%	73.9%
	Prefer not to say	–	0.8%
Religious affiliation	Muslim	71%	54.3%
	Christian	16%	33.3%
	Druze	13%	7.7%
	Other	–	1.1%
	Prefer not to say	–	3.5%
Hometown type	Arab	–	80.3%
	Jewish	–	0.4%
	Mixed***	–	7%
	N/A	–	12%
Mother’s education level	Less than high school	–	13%
	High school	–	29%
	Professional diploma	–	15%
	Undergraduate	–	22%
	Masters	–	18%
	Doctorate	–	1%
	Prefer not to say	–	1%
Father’s education level	Less than high school	–	20%
	High school	–	29%
	Professional diploma	–	15%
	Undergraduate	–	21%
	Masters	–	11%
	Doctorate	–	3%
	Prefer not to say	–	1%
Academic institution type	Research universities (private and public)	50.4%	57.1%
	Academic colleges (private and public)	34.5%	41.3%
	Open University	15.1%	1.5%
Academic institution	University of Haifa	–	20.8%
	ORT Braude Academic College of Engineering	–	10.8%
	University of Tel Aviv	–	10.3%
	Technion – Israel Institute of Technology	–	9.9%
	Tel Hai Academic College	–	7.5%
	Hebrew University of Jerusalem	–	7.2%
	The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College	–	3.7%
	Ben Gurion University of the Negev	–	3.5%
	Shenkar College of Engineering, Design and Art	–	3.5%
	Ono Academic College	–	3.3%
	Bar Ilan University	–	2.4%
	Bezalel Academy of Art and Design	–	2.2%
	Reichman University (previously Interdisciplinary Centre Herzliya)	–	2.2%
	Open University	–	1.5%
	Oranim Academic College and Teaching	–	1.5%
	Beit Berl College	–	1.1%
	Hadassah Academic College	–	1.1%
Academic discipline	Engineering & architecture	22.1%	33.1%
	Social Sciences (including social work, organisational consulting, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, criminology, human resources, political science, communication, and psychology)	16.4%	19.8%
	Humanities, education & arts (including languages, literature, history, art, music, theatre, design, visual communications and philosophy)	18.6%	13.2%
	Natural sciences & maths (including biology, chemistry, life sciences, biochemistry, pharmacology, statistics and maths)	8.3%	9.7%
	Medical & para-medical sciences (including medicine, dentistry, nursing, physiotherapy and occupational therapy)	9.9%	9.7%
	Business (including accounting, management, and economics)	18.1%	7.7%
	Law	6.6%	4.4%
Course change	Yes	–	80%
	No	–	20%
Status	Current student	–	64%
	Recent graduate	–	35%
	Stopped studies before completion	–	1%

*Population refers to PAI undergraduate students enrolled in Israeli HE institutions in the academic year 2020/2021.

**The author’s processing of data provided by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics.

***Mixed cities are defined by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics as those whose population has over 10% PAI residents.