Too Busy to Read, Too Important to Ignore: How Teachers Manage to Read Work-Related Literature in Their Day-to-Day Work

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study does not seem to provide useful perspectives on how teachers manage reading professional literature in their day to day work.  Further, the education oriented towards evidence appears to be an outdated framework and is not carefully articulated.  It is troubling that PISA 2022 no longer included measures of evidence-oriented practice. The theoretical framework for the study needs to be revisited.  On page 3, the authors appear to be offering 'solutions' to the problem before any analysis. This section seems out of context with the study. The rationale for focusing only on teachers of mathematics is not strong.  If this is the target, a more focused backgrounds needs to be developed. Research question 4 is not an appropriate research question, but might be discussion related to implications. The majority of the paper focuses on three 'activity' types; however, it is difficult to identify important issues relative to the topic of managing to read work-related literature. 

Author Response

Response Letter to the Reviews of “Too Busy to Read, too Important to Ignore: How Teachers Manage to Read Work-Related Literature in Their Day-to-Day Work”

 

Dear Editor,

 

thank you for the detailed feedback that we received on the submission of our manuscript entitled “Too busy to read, too important to ignore: How teachers manage to read work-related literature in their day-to-day work”.

 

Today we are submitting a revised version which has undergone thorough modifications according to the recommendations of the two reviewers. We highly appreciate the time and effort everyone has invested to help us improve our manuscript!

With this letter, we document the changes made or, where we decided to propose a different solution to an issue, we argue why we have refrained from proposed changes or made them less expressively. As requested, we list the comments of the reviewers and our responses below. All in all, we are really grateful for the proposed improvements and are convinced that the manuscript has gained in quality.

 

Both reviewers report to find the manuscript's rationale, theoretical framework, and clarity of focus lacking, especially concerning the emphasis on mathematics teachers and the study’s handling of reading practices.

 

In particular, we are grateful to Reviewer 1 for highlighting specific theoretical and structural concerns. These comments have prompted us to reconsider aspects of our framework and approach.

 

We also wish to extend special thanks to Reviewer 2 for the constructive and detailed guidance provided, which aligns closely with our research objectives and offers a clear pathway for refinement. Based on this feedback, we will organize our response letter below according to Reviewer 2’s recommendations, focusing on enhancing our study’s clarity, methodological focus, and broader applicability.

 

Sincerely,

the authors

 

 

Reviewer comments and authors‘ responses

Reviewer: 2

[R2]: Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, "Too Busy to Read, Too Important to Ignore: How Teachers Manage to Read Work-Related Literature in Their Day-to-Day Work." I appreciate the insights you've provided on how German mathematics teachers allocate their time in their daily work routines. After reviewing the manuscript, I have a few key questions and concerns that I hope can help strengthen the study's contribution. I’ve outlined my suggestions below.

 

[Authors]: Thank you for your appreciation! Your constructive feedback provided us with many useful suggestions which we implemented throughout the manuscript.

[R2]: First, it would be helpful to have a clearer rationale for the focus on German teachers specifically. Currently, the manuscript could benefit from a stronger justification for analyzing German mathematics teachers as opposed to a more comparative approach that includes teachers from other countries. A clearer explanation of the relevance and implications of these findings for an international audience might also enhance the impact of your work.

 

[Authors]: We agree that the benefits of such a specific population as teachers in Germany need to be made clearer to an international readership. We have therefore decided to focus the rationale of the study on the shortage of teachers and the associated workload and time constraints. This aspect is currently an issue in many education systems around the world. Accordingly, in our text we have now made an explicit reference to other, similarly structured education systems worldwide (p. 2) and have also worked out at appropriate points the extent to which the example of Germany and the separate analyses of mathematics teachers as an example for possible subject-specific effects, can serve as an impetus for the implementation of concepts to promote evidence-orientation in times of teacher shortages.

[R2]: Second, while this study examines mathematics teachers’ time allocation, it seems to focus more on comparing time use between mathematics and non-mathematics teachers rather than on reading practices related to work. Since the introduction and literature review emphasize reading as a significant factor, exploring reading as a distinct dimension within the analysis might be helpful. A comparison between mathematics teachers who engage in work-related reading and those who do not, for instance, could provide insights into how reading habits influence aspects like mental health, job satisfaction, or professional development needs. This could enrich the discussion and offer a deeper understanding of how different types of teachers view or approach their work.

[Authors]: Thank you for this impulse! It's true, our original manuscript had a gap here. We have sharpened chapter 1.3 of the theory section accordingly, highlighted the results regarding teachers’ engagement with work-related literature on page 9 and carried out additional analyses for the reading and non-reading subgroups of mathematics teachers regarding the previously analyzed scales of job satisfaction, training needs, cooperative work, and stress. We have taken up the results of these further analyses accordingly in the discussion. The results can be found on pages 11 to 13.

 

[R2]: Third, if the aim remains to explore teachers' time allocation across subjects, you might consider breaking down non-mathematics teachers by discipline to see if there are variations in reading practices and other work-related challenges across subjects. This could offer a more nuanced view of the differences across teaching roles and provide a broader context for understanding time allocation across disciplines.

Given these suggestions, the manuscript may benefit from structural and theoretical adjustments to clarify its focus and strengthen its overall contribution. Thank you again for the opportunity to engage with your work. I hope these suggestions are helpful, and I look forward to seeing the development of this valuable research.

 

[Authors]: We would have liked to have pursued this idea further, especially as the sample size would certainly have provided us with reliable group sizes. Unfortunately, however, the PISA data does not contain any information on the subjects taught by the group of non-mathematics teachers. Therefore, this differentiation is unfortunately not possible. However, we have included this as a desideratum in the discussion as a suggestion for further studies.

Thank you very much for your engagement with our work, our paper benefited enormously from your helpful input during the revision process.

Reviewer: 1

[R1]: The study does not seem to provide useful perspectives on how teachers manage reading professional literature in their day to day work. 

 

[Authors]: Many thanks for this helpful comment. We agree that our original manuscript here was relatively superficial. Therefore, following your suggestion, we have revised chapter 1, especially 1.3, to focus more clearly on reading specialist literature. In addition, and also in response to the second review, we examined the group of mathematics teachers even more closely with regard to the relationship between reading and their job satisfaction, feelings of stress and cooperation within the teaching staff (p. 11-13).

 

[R1]: Further, the education oriented towards evidence appears to be an outdated framework and is not carefully articulated. 

 

[Authors]: Thank you for this point of criticism. We take it very seriously and have aligned our rationale in the revised version more closely with the overall picture of continuing professional development. Evidence orientation is now considered the standard in the teaching profession and our aim is to shed light on the concrete implementation of this requirement in an everyday life with little time.

 

[R1]: It is troubling that PISA 2022 no longer included measures of evidence-oriented practice. The theoretical framework for the study needs to be revisited. 

 

[Authors]: We couldn't agree more. The modules of the context questionnaires in PISA change over time according to the decisions of the PISA Governing Board. However, this interrupts or even terminates many important trend analyses. We have therefore provided feedback to the National Project Management in Germany in 4.4 with the request to include these variables again in the future. 

 

[R1]: On page 3, the authors appear to be offering 'solutions' to the problem before any analysis. This section seems out of context with the study. The rationale for focusing only on teachers of mathematics is not strong.  If this is the target, a more focused backgrounds needs to be developed.

 

[Authors]: Thank you for pointing this out. Our intention in the first few pages was not to suggest solutions, but to summarize the current state of research with regard to our question. We were happy to take your comment into account because it showed us that the text was not yet clear enough. In the revised form of the manuscript, we have explicitly explained why we are focusing on mathematics teachers in Germany in chapter 1.4, based on the summary of arguments in chapter 1.

 

[R1]: Research question 4 is not an appropriate research question, but might be discussion related to implications.

 

[Authors]: Thank you for this appropriate and helpful comment. We have taken the feedback into account accordingly and removed research question 4 as such and instead integrated the thoughts on this more clearly as possible implications from our results in the revised form.

 

[R1]: The majority of the paper focuses on three 'activity' types; however, it is difficult to identify important issues relative to the topic of managing to read work-related literature. 

 

[Authors]: Thank you for this hint. In the theory and discussion sections, we have further elaborated on the extent to which reading specialist literature is made more difficult in everyday working life. Overall, not the lack of time in general, but the time allocation for work-related activities seems to be a key for concepts in reaching teachers for engaging in professional development, which in return can have a stress-reducing effect.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, "Too Busy to Read, Too Important to Ignore: How Teachers Manage to Read Work-Related Literature in Their Day-to-Day Work." I appreciate the insights you've provided on how German mathematics teachers allocate their time in their daily work routines. After reviewing the manuscript, I have a few key questions and concerns that I hope can help strengthen the study's contribution. I’ve outlined my suggestions below.

First, it would be helpful to have a clearer rationale for the focus on German teachers specifically. Currently, the manuscript could benefit from a stronger justification for analyzing German mathematics teachers as opposed to a more comparative approach that includes teachers from other countries. A clearer explanation of the relevance and implications of these findings for an international audience might also enhance the impact of your work.

Second, while this study examines mathematics teachers’ time allocation, it seems to focus more on comparing time use between mathematics and non-mathematics teachers rather than on reading practices related to work. Since the introduction and literature review emphasize reading as a significant factor, exploring reading as a distinct dimension within the analysis might be helpful. A comparison between mathematics teachers who engage in work-related reading and those who do not, for instance, could provide insights into how reading habits influence aspects like mental health, job satisfaction, or professional development needs. This could enrich the discussion and offer a deeper understanding of how different types of teachers view or approach their work.

Third, if the aim remains to explore teachers' time allocation across subjects, you might consider breaking down non-mathematics teachers by discipline to see if there are variations in reading practices and other work-related challenges across subjects. This could offer a more nuanced view of the differences across teaching roles and provide a broader context for understanding time allocation across disciplines.

Given these suggestions, the manuscript may benefit from structural and theoretical adjustments to clarify its focus and strengthen its overall contribution. Thank you again for the opportunity to engage with your work. I hope these suggestions are helpful, and I look forward to seeing the development of this valuable research.

Author Response

Response Letter to the Reviews of “Too Busy to Read, too Important to Ignore: How Teachers Manage to Read Work-Related Literature in Their Day-to-Day Work”

 

Dear Editor,

 

thank you for the detailed feedback that we received on the submission of our manuscript entitled “Too busy to read, too important to ignore: How teachers manage to read work-related literature in their day-to-day work”.

 

Today we are submitting a revised version which has undergone thorough modifications according to the recommendations of the two reviewers. We highly appreciate the time and effort everyone has invested to help us improve our manuscript!

With this letter, we document the changes made or, where we decided to propose a different solution to an issue, we argue why we have refrained from proposed changes or made them less expressively. As requested, we list the comments of the reviewers and our responses below. All in all, we are really grateful for the proposed improvements and are convinced that the manuscript has gained in quality.

 

Both reviewers report to find the manuscript's rationale, theoretical framework, and clarity of focus lacking, especially concerning the emphasis on mathematics teachers and the study’s handling of reading practices.

 

In particular, we are grateful to Reviewer 1 for highlighting specific theoretical and structural concerns. These comments have prompted us to reconsider aspects of our framework and approach.

 

We also wish to extend special thanks to Reviewer 2 for the constructive and detailed guidance provided, which aligns closely with our research objectives and offers a clear pathway for refinement. Based on this feedback, we will organize our response letter below according to Reviewer 2’s recommendations, focusing on enhancing our study’s clarity, methodological focus, and broader applicability.

 

Sincerely,

the authors

 

 

Reviewer comments and authors‘ responses

Reviewer: 2

[R2]: Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, "Too Busy to Read, Too Important to Ignore: How Teachers Manage to Read Work-Related Literature in Their Day-to-Day Work." I appreciate the insights you've provided on how German mathematics teachers allocate their time in their daily work routines. After reviewing the manuscript, I have a few key questions and concerns that I hope can help strengthen the study's contribution. I’ve outlined my suggestions below.

 

[Authors]: Thank you for your appreciation! Your constructive feedback provided us with many useful suggestions which we implemented throughout the manuscript.

[R2]: First, it would be helpful to have a clearer rationale for the focus on German teachers specifically. Currently, the manuscript could benefit from a stronger justification for analyzing German mathematics teachers as opposed to a more comparative approach that includes teachers from other countries. A clearer explanation of the relevance and implications of these findings for an international audience might also enhance the impact of your work.

 

[Authors]: We agree that the benefits of such a specific population as teachers in Germany need to be made clearer to an international readership. We have therefore decided to focus the rationale of the study on the shortage of teachers and the associated workload and time constraints. This aspect is currently an issue in many education systems around the world. Accordingly, in our text we have now made an explicit reference to other, similarly structured education systems worldwide (p. 2) and have also worked out at appropriate points the extent to which the example of Germany and the separate analyses of mathematics teachers as an example for possible subject-specific effects, can serve as an impetus for the implementation of concepts to promote evidence-orientation in times of teacher shortages.

[R2]: Second, while this study examines mathematics teachers’ time allocation, it seems to focus more on comparing time use between mathematics and non-mathematics teachers rather than on reading practices related to work. Since the introduction and literature review emphasize reading as a significant factor, exploring reading as a distinct dimension within the analysis might be helpful. A comparison between mathematics teachers who engage in work-related reading and those who do not, for instance, could provide insights into how reading habits influence aspects like mental health, job satisfaction, or professional development needs. This could enrich the discussion and offer a deeper understanding of how different types of teachers view or approach their work.

[Authors]: Thank you for this impulse! It's true, our original manuscript had a gap here. We have sharpened chapter 1.3 of the theory section accordingly, highlighted the results regarding teachers’ engagement with work-related literature on page 9 and carried out additional analyses for the reading and non-reading subgroups of mathematics teachers regarding the previously analyzed scales of job satisfaction, training needs, cooperative work, and stress. We have taken up the results of these further analyses accordingly in the discussion. The results can be found on pages 11 to 13.

 

[R2]: Third, if the aim remains to explore teachers' time allocation across subjects, you might consider breaking down non-mathematics teachers by discipline to see if there are variations in reading practices and other work-related challenges across subjects. This could offer a more nuanced view of the differences across teaching roles and provide a broader context for understanding time allocation across disciplines.

Given these suggestions, the manuscript may benefit from structural and theoretical adjustments to clarify its focus and strengthen its overall contribution. Thank you again for the opportunity to engage with your work. I hope these suggestions are helpful, and I look forward to seeing the development of this valuable research.

 

[Authors]: We would have liked to have pursued this idea further, especially as the sample size would certainly have provided us with reliable group sizes. Unfortunately, however, the PISA data does not contain any information on the subjects taught by the group of non-mathematics teachers. Therefore, this differentiation is unfortunately not possible. However, we have included this as a desideratum in the discussion as a suggestion for further studies.

Thank you very much for your engagement with our work, our paper benefited enormously from your helpful input during the revision process.

Reviewer: 1

[R1]: The study does not seem to provide useful perspectives on how teachers manage reading professional literature in their day to day work. 

 

[Authors]: Many thanks for this helpful comment. We agree that our original manuscript here was relatively superficial. Therefore, following your suggestion, we have revised chapter 1, especially 1.3, to focus more clearly on reading specialist literature. In addition, and also in response to the second review, we examined the group of mathematics teachers even more closely with regard to the relationship between reading and their job satisfaction, feelings of stress and cooperation within the teaching staff (p. 11-13).

 

[R1]: Further, the education oriented towards evidence appears to be an outdated framework and is not carefully articulated. 

 

[Authors]: Thank you for this point of criticism. We take it very seriously and have aligned our rationale in the revised version more closely with the overall picture of continuing professional development. Evidence orientation is now considered the standard in the teaching profession and our aim is to shed light on the concrete implementation of this requirement in an everyday life with little time.

 

[R1]: It is troubling that PISA 2022 no longer included measures of evidence-oriented practice. The theoretical framework for the study needs to be revisited. 

 

[Authors]: We couldn't agree more. The modules of the context questionnaires in PISA change over time according to the decisions of the PISA Governing Board. However, this interrupts or even terminates many important trend analyses. We have therefore provided feedback to the National Project Management in Germany in 4.4 with the request to include these variables again in the future. 

 

[R1]: On page 3, the authors appear to be offering 'solutions' to the problem before any analysis. This section seems out of context with the study. The rationale for focusing only on teachers of mathematics is not strong.  If this is the target, a more focused backgrounds needs to be developed.

 

[Authors]: Thank you for pointing this out. Our intention in the first few pages was not to suggest solutions, but to summarize the current state of research with regard to our question. We were happy to take your comment into account because it showed us that the text was not yet clear enough. In the revised form of the manuscript, we have explicitly explained why we are focusing on mathematics teachers in Germany in chapter 1.4, based on the summary of arguments in chapter 1.

 

[R1]: Research question 4 is not an appropriate research question, but might be discussion related to implications.

 

[Authors]: Thank you for this appropriate and helpful comment. We have taken the feedback into account accordingly and removed research question 4 as such and instead integrated the thoughts on this more clearly as possible implications from our results in the revised form.

 

[R1]: The majority of the paper focuses on three 'activity' types; however, it is difficult to identify important issues relative to the topic of managing to read work-related literature. 

 

[Authors]: Thank you for this hint. In the theory and discussion sections, we have further elaborated on the extent to which reading specialist literature is made more difficult in everyday working life. Overall, not the lack of time in general, but the time allocation for work-related activities seems to be a key for concepts in reaching teachers for engaging in professional development, which in return can have a stress-reducing effect.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The additions make for a more coherent paper.  Understanding the types of teachers is important and those not familiar with the tags from German schooling may fully understand the distinctions; therefore, stronger descriptions of these types is needed. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the thoughtful responses and revisions made to this manuscript. My suggestions and comments on the original submission have been addressed appropriately. I have no further suggestions or comments and wish you all the best. Thank you again.