Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting but I would recommend a deeper and more thoughtful presentation of the findings. The eye-tracker analysis is a bit simple and it does not specify the nature of the digital tasks. We do not even know the cognitive level it demands to be done and if the tasks used in both groups are similar. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors should better argue the mixed-method approach by referring to previous studies combining eye-tracking with qualitative methods.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded the discussion in lines 50–51 to include recent studies that employed mixed-method designs with eye-tracking (Johnson & Strauch, 2021; Lim et al., 2018), in order to better contextualize the methodological contribution of our research. Updated text can be found on page 2, paragraph 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The researchers investigated how students from STEM and non-STEM fields adopts visual attention processes and cognitive during self-directed study activities with digital materials during individual study sessions.

The title highlighted the population of the study and the context, and the methods used in the study. However, the title could be more specific and direct for instance, “A Study Combining Eye Tracker with Interviews” could be "A Mixed Study using Eye Tracker and Interviews".

The abstract clearly states the problem, the method and sample were clearly described and key results and the research implication was clearly stated.

The introduction clearly states the research problem and cited previous studies in the area. However these studies were only mentioned without a summary exploration of these studies which will provide a solid foundation for the research gap and justification for the research methods use in this work.

What is the justification from literature for the use of mixed methods/” combining quantitative data on visual behavior with qualitative insights from semi-structured interviews "?(lines 50-51)

Unlike much previous research that tends to view digital adoption as a homogeneous phenomenon (provide study citations – lines 53-54).

The research is theoretically grounded with respect to the use Activity Theory to frame cognition when using digital tools among male and female students studying STEM and non-STEM subjects.

Methods: the procedure for data collection contains sufficient details for each data collection process in the mixed method study. Consent form for research participants was mentioned but an institutional review board process was not mentioned.

Result/Discussion: The results and discussion sections are framed as response to the questions. Captions are understandable and explainable on their own. The discussion of the findings of this research was adequately situated in existing literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The study will benefit from a review of the english used for clarity.

Author Response

Comments 2: The authors should specify the ethical approval procedure and provide reference details.

Response 2: Following this suggestion, we have added the ethical approval information in the Method section, specifying the Ethics Committee at the Department of Education, Psychology and Communication, University of Bari, with reference code ET-24-16 and the approval date. This addition appears on page 5, paragraph 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf