Curriculum Material Use in EFL Classrooms: Moderation and Mediation Effects of Teachers’ Beliefs and TPACK

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a valuable and well-structured contribution to understanding the interaction between curriculum material use, TPACK, and teachers’ beliefs in EFL classrooms. The methodology is solid, and the empirical analysis is competently executed. However, some revisions are needed before publication:

Terminology and acronyms:

Certain acronyms (e.g., CMUA, TMUA) are used in tables and results sections without being clearly defined beforehand. All acronyms should be explicitly introduced the first time they appear.

English usage:

While generally readable, the manuscript contains several instances of awkward or non-idiomatic phrasing. Some examples found are:

PBLC and PBTC instead of LCPB and TCPB in Table 2

p. 11: “corroborate with Harris” > “corroborate Harris”

p. 12: “influencing on teachers’” > “influencing teachers’”

p. 13: “moving toward to a student” > “moving toward a student”

“english” several times in the Reference list

Discussion:

Although generally sound, some of the interpretations of the mediating effects could be more cautiously worded, particularly where statistical significance is close to the threshold. The implications could also be developed in more depth, especially regarding how teacher training could address the gaps revealed.

References and Citation Formatting:

A few inconsistencies exist in the reference list:

Martinez, M. I., Díaz Lara, G., & Whitney, C. R. (2024 or 2025) appears twice.

Refs. 16, 17, and 69 include a wrong DOI.

Aside from the specific issues listed above, I would like to commend the authors for presenting a well-structured and theoretically grounded study.

Author Response

Responses to Academic Editors comments

Comments: 1. The literature review is mostly descriptive, perhaps providing critical analysis on the limitations and methodological weaknesses of the previous studies will enhance the literature review.

Responses: Critical analyses of the limitations and methodological weaknesses are provided in the literature review and highlighted in yellow under each section of TPACK, beliefs, and material use approach. The analysis focuses on the neglect of the material use approach in previous related studies and the heavy reliance on questionnaires. The current study addresses this gap by investigating teachers’ pedagogical beliefs as observable patterns in material use approach using a close-ended written interview to capture how their beliefs are enacted in their actual pedagogical contexts. The critical analyses are as follows:

While Ali and Mohammadzadeh (2022), Liang et al. (2017b), and Yildiz Durak (2021) recognize that teachers’ beliefs may interfere with the application of TPACK in teachers’ instruction, earlier studies neglected the role of teachers’ beliefs in their approach to using curriculum materials. Moreover, existing TPACK studies did not capture how teachers enacted TPACK. Therefore, the current study fills this gap by exploring the interrelationships among EFL teachers’ TPACK and pedagogical beliefs regarding curriculum material use approaches. The current study also employs an open-ended written interview to gain a clearer understanding of teachers’ classroom-level practices and decisions. (Page 3)

Despite the growing body of research on teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, the studies mentioned above still present some methodological and conceptual limitations. The studies relied heavily on surveys, focusing solely on their stated beliefs rather than their actual classroom practices. Additionally, there is still limited focus on curriculum material use approaches, leading to a limited understanding of how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs influence their selection, adaptation, and design of materials. Therefore, this study addresses this gap by investigating teachers’ pedagogical beliefs as observable patterns in the material use approach, using both a closed-ended questionnaire and an open-ended written interview to capture how their beliefs are enacted in their actual pedagogical contexts. (Page 4)

Nevertheless, most studies focused on the conceptual classification of material use but neglected how EFL teachers’ TPACK and pedagogical beliefs are applied in actual material selection, adaptation, and design. Thus, to fill these gaps, the current study uses open-ended written interview data to examine teachers’ actual practices regarding their material use. The interview provides a more explicit understanding of how TPACK and pedagogical beliefs shape instructional choices. (Page 5)

 

 

Comments: 2. Providing description of the coding process will enhance the research methodology.

Responses: The coding process description is provided in the data analysis section, highlighted in yellow as follows:

The results of open-ended written interview questions were explored qualitatively using thematic analysis. The answers were coded based on TPACK, pedagogical beliefs, and the curriculum material use approach for reading activities. Answers about TPACK practice were coded into three substitution levels: using technology, multimedia augmentation, and integration between technology and pedagogy. Answers related to pedagogical beliefs were coded into three belief practices: student-centered, hybrid, and teacher-centered. Curriculum material use-related answers were coded into textbook reliance, adaptation, and creation. After coding each answer, the researchers grouped the codes and created themes for each group. The themes are teachers’ TPACK, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, and the use of curriculum materials in actual classroom practices. (Page 8)

 

Comments: 3. Adding a correlation table and interpretation of mean differences will strengthen the analysis.

Responses: A correlational table and descriptions of the correlation among constructs are provided in the measurement model section, highlighted in yellow. The interpretation of mean differences is also provided in the descriptive statistic result section, highlighted in yellow as follows:

4.1. Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics results indicated that most EFL teachers perceived themselves to have a sufficient level of TPACK (M = 4.02, SD = 0.43). Teachers who had LCPB (M = 4.43, SD = 0.49) outnumbered those who had TCPB (M = 3.38, SD = 0.92), indicating a strong endorsement of learner-centered instructional practices. Moreover, the teachers’ reports indicated that they mostly used the materials constructively (M = 3.82, SD = 0.59) rather than in a transmissive manner (M = 3.18, SD = 0.73), suggesting a greater reliance on a constructivist approach of material use. (Page 9)

Table 2. The measurement model.

	M (SD)	CR	α	AVE	TPACK	LCPB	TCPB	CMUA	TMUA
TPACK	4.02 (0.43)	0.92	0.92	0.52	1
LCPB	4.43 (0.49)	0.89	0.88	0.66	0.464**	1
TCPB	3.38 (0.92)	0.77	0.77	0.53	0.296**	0.099	1
CMUA	3.82 (0.59)	0.71	0.72	0.45	0.384**	0.361**	0.198**	1
TMUA	3.18 (0.73)	0.82	0.82	0.61	0.166**	0.014	0.386**	-0.084	1

Table 2 presents the correlation among TPACK, LCPB, TCPB, CMUA, and TMUA. TPACK positively and statistically correlated with LCPB (r = 0.464, p < 0.01), CMUA (r = 0.384, p < 0.01), and TCPB (r = 0.296, p < 0.01). These results indicate that teachers with stronger TPACK tend to hold more learner-centered pedagogical beliefs and report greater constructivist teaching practices. TPACK and TMUA were significantly correlated, but only slightly (r = 0.166, p < 0.01), suggesting a weak relationship with traditional material use practices. LCPB was moderately correlated with CMUA (r = 0.361, p < 0.01). It indicates that LCPB aligns with constructivist classroom practices. On the contrary, LCPB did not significantly correlate with TCPB (r = 0.099, p > 0.05), showing that LCPB and TCPB operate independently. TCPB had a significant correlation with TMUA (r = 0.386, p > 0.01). This result indicates that teachers with stronger TCPB prefer the traditional approach of instructional material use. CMUA and TMUA had a weak, negative correlation (r = -0.084), indicating teachers who adopt a constructivist approach may still use a transmissive approach. (Page 9)

Comments: 4. Double-check the grammatical structure and references.

Responese : Grammatical structure is improved and references are checked.

 

 

Responses to reviewer 1:

Comments: 1. Terminology and acronyms: Certain acronyms (e.g., CMUA, TMUA) are used in tables and results sections without being clearly defined beforehand. All acronyms should be explicitly introduced the first time they appear.

Responses: The terminology and acronyms are revised. CMUA and TMUA are defined in the conceptual model section. (Page 5)

Comments: 2. English usage: While generally readable, the manuscript contains several instances of awkward or non-idiomatic phrasing. Some examples found are:

Responses: All the errors are revised

PBLC and PBTC instead of LCPB and TCPB in Table 2 (Revised to LCPB and TCPB, Page 9)

1. 11: “corroborate with Harris” > “corroborate Harris” (Revised to These findings corroborate Harris and Hofer's (2011) findings that TPACK is strongly associated ….. Page 12).
2. 12: “influencing on teachers’” > “influencing teachers’” (Revised to strongly influencing teachers’ material use orientation…. Page 12)
3. 13: “moving toward to a student” > “moving toward a student” (Revised to moving toward a student-centered approach and TPACK … Page 14)

“english” several times in the Reference list (Revised to English, pages 14-19)

Comments: 3. Discussion: Although generally sound, some of the interpretations of the mediating effects could be more cautiously worded, particularly where statistical significance is close to the threshold. The implications could also be developed in more depth, especially regarding how teacher training could address the gaps revealed.

Responses: The discussion is revised with a more cautious wordings, for example “These contradictory results may be because pedagogical beliefs encompass specific teaching strategies and the theoretical principles that guide teachers, strongly influencing teachers’ material use orientation. The word “strongly” was deleted “ (See pages 12-13)

Comments: 4. References and Citation Formatting:A few inconsistencies exist in the reference list: Martinez, M. I., Díaz Lara, G., & Whitney, C. R. (2024 or 2025) appears twice. Refs. 16, 17, and 69 include a wrong DOI.

Responses: The reference :Martinez, M. I., Díaz Lara, G., & Whitney, C. R. (2024) was deleted. (Page 17)

Valid DOI of reference 16 is not available, therefore ref. 16 is deleted.

The valid DOIs of refs 17 and 69 are provided, as follows:

Chen, B., Wei, B., & Wang, X. (2020). Examining the factors that influence high school Chemistry teachers’ use of curriculum materials: From the teachers’ perspective. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(6), 893–907. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.893  (Page 15)

Niaz, M. (2015). Textbooks: impact on curriculum. In Encyclopedia of Science Education (pp. 1070–1073). https:// DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-6165-0_181-2  (Page 18)

 

Responses to reviewer 2:

Comments: 1. In the Abstract section, the researcher/s may provide a short introduction by focusing more on the most important research gap/s that the study intended to address. They may give at least 2 sentences that clearly capture the said research gap. In addition, they may provide the implications of the study’s findings to a specific academic community instead of highlighting only its salient findings.

Responses: The most important gaps are provided in the abstract section, as follows:

There is limited understanding of how the interplay between teachers’ cognitive and affective factors influences their use of these materials, and how they use technology to enhance the effectiveness of textbooks for reading activities in EFL classrooms. The current study fills this gap by investigating the interplay among teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), learner-centered pedagogical beliefs (LCPB), teacher-centered pedagogical beliefs (TCPB), and their curriculum material use approach—specifically the constructivist and transmissive approaches – focusing on moderation and mediation effects. (Page 1)

The implications of the study’s findings to a specific academic community is provided in the abstract section, as follows:

The findings inform policymakers in initiating professional development programs that aim to shift teachers toward more constructivist uses of curriculum materials, fostering a more interactive and student-centered language-learning environment. (Page 1)

 

Comments: 2 In the Introduction section, the researcher/s may also highlight the results of related studies on the same variables in other countries, if available, so as to paint a clearer picture of the phenomenon or issue under study. It has been observed that the discussion only focuses on the Indonesian context, which may limit readers’ understanding about the occurrence of the said phenomenon or issue.

 

Responses: The results of previous related studies about the use of technology in substitution level in other countries are provided in the introduction section, as follows:

Despite these insights, studies in various contexts (Thailand and Taiwan) noted that EFL teachers integrate technology in substitution level (Boonmoh & Kulavichian, 2023; Tseng et al., 2011). Similarly,  Nurwahidah et al. (2023), Cahyono et al. (2025), and Maru et al. (2021) reported that most EFL teachers in Indonesia use technology solely for displaying the lesson for teaching reading. (Page 2)

 

Comments: 3. In the Theoretical Framework section, the researchers may not only briefly discuss the differences between constructivist-oriented and transmissive-oriented curriculum material use, but also their advantage/s or benefits to deepen readers’ understanding about what should be the more preferred approach to curriculum material use to greatly ensure effective student learning. Moreover, they may include a brief discussion on moderation and mediation to guide readers about what these concepts mean in relation to TPACK and curriculum materials use

Responses: Benefits and preferred pedagogical beliefs and curriculum materials use approaches have already been provided in the theoretical framework section, as follows:

Teacher-centered beliefs are generally associated with a teacher-centered teaching approach, in which teachers view themselves as knowledge transmitters (Dejene, 2020) and rely on methods such as lecturing, which render students passive learners (Badjadi, 2020). In contrast, learner-centered beliefs are associated with a constructivist teaching approach. This approach underscores the implementation of constructivist-based teaching strategies, such as cooperative learning, discussions,  and task-based learning (Badjadi, 2020; Ellis, 2017), promoting active student engagement and knowledge construction. (Page 3)

 

Teachers who implement a transmissive approach transmit knowledge to students by following predetermined objectives, contents, and activities, thereby affecting students’ learning and motivation (Shawer, 2010). Meanwhile, constructivist-oriented teachers create or adapt materials based on their experiences and student needs (Masuhara, 2022). They adjust the materials in order to meet their classroom context (Shawer, 2010), address students’ specific needs (Harwood, 2010), and ensure the materials are learner-centered (Maijala, 2020) by adding or deleting texts or activities, replacing or reordering sequences, and modifying or supplementing activities (Masuhara, 2022). (Page 5)

 

Comments: 4. In the Method section, the researcher/s must state the specific research design/s used aside from directly stating that it draws the same dataset from the study of Almunawaroh and Steklacs (2025), including the introduction of an additional variable that is TPACK. Furthermore, they may append the TPACKPBMU scale/questionnaire instead of presenting it in the Research Instruments subsection, as there has been a short discussion of its contents in the preceding paragraph.

 

Responses: The design of the study was provided in the method section, as follows:

This study is a mixed method design, utilizing an online survey and written open-ended interview questions were employed. This study draws on the same dataset as Almunawaroh and Steklács (2025). The current study introduces an additional variable (TPACK), applies both moderation and mediation frameworks, and incorporates open-ended responses to address a research question about how teachers translate their perceived TPACK, pedagogical beliefs, and curriculum material use approaches into their practices. (Page 5)

 

Comments: 5. In the Results section, specifically on qualitative data, the researcher/s may provide not only snippets of the responses of the participants but also the corresponding codes used to refer to each of the participants in relation to their responses, and if available, the lines where these snippets are found.

 

Responses: The corresponding codes are provided, as in the following examples:

 

(participant 9) “I arranged the text into random order, and students had to rearrange it.” Another mentioned, (participant 6) “I had ever adapted teaching learning materials from a textbook by combining the exercise in the text with my own creativity … I modified the exercise by adding more type of question.” These activities reflect teachers’ attempts to scaffold comprehension by modifying texts and activities. (See pages 11-12)

 

Comments: 6. In the Discussion section, the researcher/s may arrange the discussion of the foregoing results by discussing first all the quantitative results, followed by the qualitative results. It has been noticed that the results on the direct, mediating, and moderating effects of TPACK, LCPB, and TCPB on teachers’ curriculum material use approaches are discussed in the last paragraph

 

Responses: The discussion section is arranged based on the suggested order: the quantitative results, followed by the qualitative results. The last paragraph discussing about “The direct, mediating, and moderating effects of TPACK, LCPB, and TCPB on teachers’ curriculum material use” was moved to the second last paragraph before the discussions of results of thematic analysis” (page 13)

 

Comments: 7. In the Conclusions section, the researcher/s may also emphasize the reasons of many teachers to still adhere closely to the use of curriculum materials although it has been found that they are moving toward a student-centered approach and TPACK awareness.

 

Responses: The reasons why the teachers still implement transmissive use of curriculum materials are provided, as follows:

 

Although some teachers still hold implement transmissive material use approaches because of the intervene of their beliefs and contextual factors, such as school regulations, Teachers’ TPACK, pedagogical beliefs, and curriculum material use classroom practices are moving toward a student-centered approach and TPACK awareness. However, many teachers still adhere closely to curriculum materials, causing some to implement both student and teacher-centered practices. (page 14)

 

Comments: 8. In the References section, the researcher/s must ensure one-to-one correspondence, which means that those cited in the main text have their corresponding entries in this section. They may also give online links to these sources. If possible, they must consider more recent sources (at least 5-10 years back) to improve the up-to-datedness of this paper.

 

Responses: The references were checked and revised, those cited in the main text have their corresponding entries in the references section.

 

Comments: 9. The paper may contain inconsistencies (e.g., grammar, formatting, spacing, etc.) that may affect the paper's readability. It is suggested that the researcher/s may seek assistance from a language/technical expert to address these inconsistencies.

Responses: The language quality of the manuscript is improved. The score based on Wiley manuscript language checker is 91%.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Commentary on the Article:

        I believe this paper can a valuable source of novel and practical insights that would help us better understand the moderating and mediating effects of the interplay of teachers’ cognitive and affective factors on their utilization of curriculum materials like textbooks, as well as their use of technology in the enhancement of the textbooks’ effectiveness for reading activities in EFL classrooms. The paper already demonstrates high scholarship; however, the following aspects/sections need to be revised to enhance the paper’s overall readability:  

1. In the Abstract section, the researcher/s may provide a short introduction by focusing more on the most important research gap/s that the study intended to address. They may give at least 2 sentences that clearly capture the said research gap. In addition, they may provide the implications of the study’s findings to a specific academic community instead of highlighting only its salient findings;  
2. In the Introduction section, the researcher/s may also highlight the results of related studies on the same variables in other countries, if available, so as to paint a clearer picture of the phenomenon or issue under study. It has been observed that the discussion only focuses on the Indonesian context, which may limit readers’ understanding about the occurrence of the said phenomenon or issue;
3. In the Theoretical Framework section, the researchers may not only briefly discuss the differences between constructivist-oriented and transmissive-oriented curriculum material use, but also their advantage/s or benefits to deepen readers’ understanding about what should be the more preferred approach to curriculum material use to greatly ensure effective student learning. Moreover, they may include a brief discussion on moderation and mediation to guide readers about what these concepts mean in relation to TPACK and curriculum materials use;       
4. In the Method section, the researcher/s must state the specific research design/s used aside from directly stating that it draws the same dataset from the study of Almunawaroh and Steklacs (2025), including the introduction of an additional variable that is TPACK. Furthermore, they may append the TPACKPBMU scale/questionnaire instead of presenting it in the Research Instruments subsection, as there has been a short discussion of its contents in the preceding paragraph;
5. In the Results section, specifically on qualitative data, the researcher/s may provide not only snippets of the responses of the participants but also the corresponding codes used to refer to each of the participants in relation to their responses, and if available, the lines where these snippets are found;
6. In the Discussion section, the researcher/s may arrange the discussion of the foregoing results by discussing first all the quantitative results, followed by the qualitative results. It has been noticed that the results on the direct, mediating, and moderating effects of TPACK, LCPB, and TCPB on teachers’ curriculum material use approaches are discussed in the last paragraph;     
7. In the Conclusions section, the researcher/s may also emphasize the reasons of many teachers to still adhere closely to the use of curriculum materials although it has been found that they are moving toward a student-centered approach and TPACK awareness;
8. In the References section, the researcher/s must ensure one-to-one correspondence, which means that those cited in the main text have their corresponding entries in this section. They may also give online links to these sources. If possible, they must consider more recent sources (at least 5-10 years back) to improve the up-to-datedness of this paper; and
9. The paper may contain inconsistencies (e.g., grammar, formatting, spacing, etc.) that may affect the paper's readability. It is suggested that the researcher/s may seek assistance from a language/technical expert to address these inconsistencies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Academic Editors comments

Comments: 1. The literature review is mostly descriptive, perhaps providing critical analysis on the limitations and methodological weaknesses of the previous studies will enhance the literature review.

Responses: Critical analyses of the limitations and methodological weaknesses are provided in the literature review and highlighted in yellow under each section of TPACK, beliefs, and material use approach. The analysis focuses on the neglect of the material use approach in previous related studies and the heavy reliance on questionnaires. The current study addresses this gap by investigating teachers’ pedagogical beliefs as observable patterns in material use approach using a close-ended written interview to capture how their beliefs are enacted in their actual pedagogical contexts. The critical analyses are as follows:

While Ali and Mohammadzadeh (2022), Liang et al. (2017b), and Yildiz Durak (2021) recognize that teachers’ beliefs may interfere with the application of TPACK in teachers’ instruction, earlier studies neglected the role of teachers’ beliefs in their approach to using curriculum materials. Moreover, existing TPACK studies did not capture how teachers enacted TPACK. Therefore, the current study fills this gap by exploring the interrelationships among EFL teachers’ TPACK and pedagogical beliefs regarding curriculum material use approaches. The current study also employs an open-ended written interview to gain a clearer understanding of teachers’ classroom-level practices and decisions. (Page 3)

Despite the growing body of research on teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, the studies mentioned above still present some methodological and conceptual limitations. The studies relied heavily on surveys, focusing solely on their stated beliefs rather than their actual classroom practices. Additionally, there is still limited focus on curriculum material use approaches, leading to a limited understanding of how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs influence their selection, adaptation, and design of materials. Therefore, this study addresses this gap by investigating teachers’ pedagogical beliefs as observable patterns in the material use approach, using both a closed-ended questionnaire and an open-ended written interview to capture how their beliefs are enacted in their actual pedagogical contexts. (Page 4)

Nevertheless, most studies focused on the conceptual classification of material use but neglected how EFL teachers’ TPACK and pedagogical beliefs are applied in actual material selection, adaptation, and design. Thus, to fill these gaps, the current study uses open-ended written interview data to examine teachers’ actual practices regarding their material use. The interview provides a more explicit understanding of how TPACK and pedagogical beliefs shape instructional choices. (Page 5)

 

 

Comments: 2. Providing description of the coding process will enhance the research methodology.

Responses: The coding process description is provided in the data analysis section, highlighted in yellow as follows:

The results of open-ended written interview questions were explored qualitatively using thematic analysis. The answers were coded based on TPACK, pedagogical beliefs, and the curriculum material use approach for reading activities. Answers about TPACK practice were coded into three substitution levels: using technology, multimedia augmentation, and integration between technology and pedagogy. Answers related to pedagogical beliefs were coded into three belief practices: student-centered, hybrid, and teacher-centered. Curriculum material use-related answers were coded into textbook reliance, adaptation, and creation. After coding each answer, the researchers grouped the codes and created themes for each group. The themes are teachers’ TPACK, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, and the use of curriculum materials in actual classroom practices. (Page 8)

 

Comments: 3. Adding a correlation table and interpretation of mean differences will strengthen the analysis.

Responses: A correlational table and descriptions of the correlation among constructs are provided in the measurement model section, highlighted in yellow. The interpretation of mean differences is also provided in the descriptive statistic result section, highlighted in yellow as follows:

4.1. Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics results indicated that most EFL teachers perceived themselves to have a sufficient level of TPACK (M = 4.02, SD = 0.43). Teachers who had LCPB (M = 4.43, SD = 0.49) outnumbered those who had TCPB (M = 3.38, SD = 0.92), indicating a strong endorsement of learner-centered instructional practices. Moreover, the teachers’ reports indicated that they mostly used the materials constructively (M = 3.82, SD = 0.59) rather than in a transmissive manner (M = 3.18, SD = 0.73), suggesting a greater reliance on a constructivist approach of material use. (Page 9)

Table 2. The measurement model.

	M (SD)	CR	α	AVE	TPACK	LCPB	TCPB	CMUA	TMUA
TPACK	4.02 (0.43)	0.92	0.92	0.52	1
LCPB	4.43 (0.49)	0.89	0.88	0.66	0.464**	1
TCPB	3.38 (0.92)	0.77	0.77	0.53	0.296**	0.099	1
CMUA	3.82 (0.59)	0.71	0.72	0.45	0.384**	0.361**	0.198**	1
TMUA	3.18 (0.73)	0.82	0.82	0.61	0.166**	0.014	0.386**	-0.084	1

Table 2 presents the correlation among TPACK, LCPB, TCPB, CMUA, and TMUA. TPACK positively and statistically correlated with LCPB (r = 0.464, p < 0.01), CMUA (r = 0.384, p < 0.01), and TCPB (r = 0.296, p < 0.01). These results indicate that teachers with stronger TPACK tend to hold more learner-centered pedagogical beliefs and report greater constructivist teaching practices. TPACK and TMUA were significantly correlated, but only slightly (r = 0.166, p < 0.01), suggesting a weak relationship with traditional material use practices. LCPB was moderately correlated with CMUA (r = 0.361, p < 0.01). It indicates that LCPB aligns with constructivist classroom practices. On the contrary, LCPB did not significantly correlate with TCPB (r = 0.099, p > 0.05), showing that LCPB and TCPB operate independently. TCPB had a significant correlation with TMUA (r = 0.386, p > 0.01). This result indicates that teachers with stronger TCPB prefer the traditional approach of instructional material use. CMUA and TMUA had a weak, negative correlation (r = -0.084), indicating teachers who adopt a constructivist approach may still use a transmissive approach. (Page 9)

Comments: 4. Double-check the grammatical structure and references.

Responese : Grammatical structure is improved and references are checked.

 

 

Responses to reviewer 1:

Comments: 1. Terminology and acronyms: Certain acronyms (e.g., CMUA, TMUA) are used in tables and results sections without being clearly defined beforehand. All acronyms should be explicitly introduced the first time they appear.

Responses: The terminology and acronyms are revised. CMUA and TMUA are defined in the conceptual model section. (Page 5)

Comments: 2. English usage: While generally readable, the manuscript contains several instances of awkward or non-idiomatic phrasing. Some examples found are:

Responses: All the errors are revised

PBLC and PBTC instead of LCPB and TCPB in Table 2 (Revised to LCPB and TCPB, Page 9)

1. 11: “corroborate with Harris” > “corroborate Harris” (Revised to These findings corroborate Harris and Hofer's (2011) findings that TPACK is strongly associated ….. Page 12).
2. 12: “influencing on teachers’” > “influencing teachers’” (Revised to strongly influencing teachers’ material use orientation…. Page 12)
3. 13: “moving toward to a student” > “moving toward a student” (Revised to moving toward a student-centered approach and TPACK … Page 14)

“english” several times in the Reference list (Revised to English, pages 14-19)

Comments: 3. Discussion: Although generally sound, some of the interpretations of the mediating effects could be more cautiously worded, particularly where statistical significance is close to the threshold. The implications could also be developed in more depth, especially regarding how teacher training could address the gaps revealed.

Responses: The discussion is revised with a more cautious wordings, for example “These contradictory results may be because pedagogical beliefs encompass specific teaching strategies and the theoretical principles that guide teachers, strongly influencing teachers’ material use orientation. The word “strongly” was deleted “ (See pages 12-13)

Comments: 4. References and Citation Formatting:A few inconsistencies exist in the reference list: Martinez, M. I., Díaz Lara, G., & Whitney, C. R. (2024 or 2025) appears twice. Refs. 16, 17, and 69 include a wrong DOI.

Responses: The reference :Martinez, M. I., Díaz Lara, G., & Whitney, C. R. (2024) was deleted. (Page 17)

Valid DOI of reference 16 is not available, therefore ref. 16 is deleted.

The valid DOIs of refs 17 and 69 are provided, as follows:

Chen, B., Wei, B., & Wang, X. (2020). Examining the factors that influence high school Chemistry teachers’ use of curriculum materials: From the teachers’ perspective. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(6), 893–907. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.893  (Page 15)

Niaz, M. (2015). Textbooks: impact on curriculum. In Encyclopedia of Science Education (pp. 1070–1073). https:// DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-6165-0_181-2  (Page 18)

 

Responses to reviewer 2:

Comments: 1. In the Abstract section, the researcher/s may provide a short introduction by focusing more on the most important research gap/s that the study intended to address. They may give at least 2 sentences that clearly capture the said research gap. In addition, they may provide the implications of the study’s findings to a specific academic community instead of highlighting only its salient findings.

Responses: The most important gaps are provided in the abstract section, as follows:

There is limited understanding of how the interplay between teachers’ cognitive and affective factors influences their use of these materials, and how they use technology to enhance the effectiveness of textbooks for reading activities in EFL classrooms. The current study fills this gap by investigating the interplay among teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), learner-centered pedagogical beliefs (LCPB), teacher-centered pedagogical beliefs (TCPB), and their curriculum material use approach—specifically the constructivist and transmissive approaches – focusing on moderation and mediation effects. (Page 1)

The implications of the study’s findings to a specific academic community is provided in the abstract section, as follows:

The findings inform policymakers in initiating professional development programs that aim to shift teachers toward more constructivist uses of curriculum materials, fostering a more interactive and student-centered language-learning environment. (Page 1)

 

Comments: 2 In the Introduction section, the researcher/s may also highlight the results of related studies on the same variables in other countries, if available, so as to paint a clearer picture of the phenomenon or issue under study. It has been observed that the discussion only focuses on the Indonesian context, which may limit readers’ understanding about the occurrence of the said phenomenon or issue.

 

Responses: The results of previous related studies about the use of technology in substitution level in other countries are provided in the introduction section, as follows:

Despite these insights, studies in various contexts (Thailand and Taiwan) noted that EFL teachers integrate technology in substitution level (Boonmoh & Kulavichian, 2023; Tseng et al., 2011). Similarly,  Nurwahidah et al. (2023), Cahyono et al. (2025), and Maru et al. (2021) reported that most EFL teachers in Indonesia use technology solely for displaying the lesson for teaching reading. (Page 2)

 

Comments: 3. In the Theoretical Framework section, the researchers may not only briefly discuss the differences between constructivist-oriented and transmissive-oriented curriculum material use, but also their advantage/s or benefits to deepen readers’ understanding about what should be the more preferred approach to curriculum material use to greatly ensure effective student learning. Moreover, they may include a brief discussion on moderation and mediation to guide readers about what these concepts mean in relation to TPACK and curriculum materials use

Responses: Benefits and preferred pedagogical beliefs and curriculum materials use approaches have already been provided in the theoretical framework section, as follows:

Teacher-centered beliefs are generally associated with a teacher-centered teaching approach, in which teachers view themselves as knowledge transmitters (Dejene, 2020) and rely on methods such as lecturing, which render students passive learners (Badjadi, 2020). In contrast, learner-centered beliefs are associated with a constructivist teaching approach. This approach underscores the implementation of constructivist-based teaching strategies, such as cooperative learning, discussions,  and task-based learning (Badjadi, 2020; Ellis, 2017), promoting active student engagement and knowledge construction. (Page 3)

 

Teachers who implement a transmissive approach transmit knowledge to students by following predetermined objectives, contents, and activities, thereby affecting students’ learning and motivation (Shawer, 2010). Meanwhile, constructivist-oriented teachers create or adapt materials based on their experiences and student needs (Masuhara, 2022). They adjust the materials in order to meet their classroom context (Shawer, 2010), address students’ specific needs (Harwood, 2010), and ensure the materials are learner-centered (Maijala, 2020) by adding or deleting texts or activities, replacing or reordering sequences, and modifying or supplementing activities (Masuhara, 2022). (Page 5)

 

Comments: 4. In the Method section, the researcher/s must state the specific research design/s used aside from directly stating that it draws the same dataset from the study of Almunawaroh and Steklacs (2025), including the introduction of an additional variable that is TPACK. Furthermore, they may append the TPACKPBMU scale/questionnaire instead of presenting it in the Research Instruments subsection, as there has been a short discussion of its contents in the preceding paragraph.

 

Responses: The design of the study was provided in the method section, as follows:

This study is a mixed method design, utilizing an online survey and written open-ended interview questions were employed. This study draws on the same dataset as Almunawaroh and Steklács (2025). The current study introduces an additional variable (TPACK), applies both moderation and mediation frameworks, and incorporates open-ended responses to address a research question about how teachers translate their perceived TPACK, pedagogical beliefs, and curriculum material use approaches into their practices. (Page 5)

 

Comments: 5. In the Results section, specifically on qualitative data, the researcher/s may provide not only snippets of the responses of the participants but also the corresponding codes used to refer to each of the participants in relation to their responses, and if available, the lines where these snippets are found.

 

Responses: The corresponding codes are provided, as in the following examples:

 

(participant 9) “I arranged the text into random order, and students had to rearrange it.” Another mentioned, (participant 6) “I had ever adapted teaching learning materials from a textbook by combining the exercise in the text with my own creativity … I modified the exercise by adding more type of question.” These activities reflect teachers’ attempts to scaffold comprehension by modifying texts and activities. (See pages 11-12)

 

Comments: 6. In the Discussion section, the researcher/s may arrange the discussion of the foregoing results by discussing first all the quantitative results, followed by the qualitative results. It has been noticed that the results on the direct, mediating, and moderating effects of TPACK, LCPB, and TCPB on teachers’ curriculum material use approaches are discussed in the last paragraph

 

Responses: The discussion section is arranged based on the suggested order: the quantitative results, followed by the qualitative results. The last paragraph discussing about “The direct, mediating, and moderating effects of TPACK, LCPB, and TCPB on teachers’ curriculum material use” was moved to the second last paragraph before the discussions of results of thematic analysis” (page 13)

 

Comments: 7. In the Conclusions section, the researcher/s may also emphasize the reasons of many teachers to still adhere closely to the use of curriculum materials although it has been found that they are moving toward a student-centered approach and TPACK awareness.

 

Responses: The reasons why the teachers still implement transmissive use of curriculum materials are provided, as follows:

 

Although some teachers still hold implement transmissive material use approaches because of the intervene of their beliefs and contextual factors, such as school regulations, Teachers’ TPACK, pedagogical beliefs, and curriculum material use classroom practices are moving toward a student-centered approach and TPACK awareness. However, many teachers still adhere closely to curriculum materials, causing some to implement both student and teacher-centered practices. (page 14)

 

Comments: 8. In the References section, the researcher/s must ensure one-to-one correspondence, which means that those cited in the main text have their corresponding entries in this section. They may also give online links to these sources. If possible, they must consider more recent sources (at least 5-10 years back) to improve the up-to-datedness of this paper.

 

Responses: The references were checked and revised, those cited in the main text have their corresponding entries in the references section.

 

Comments: 9. The paper may contain inconsistencies (e.g., grammar, formatting, spacing, etc.) that may affect the paper's readability. It is suggested that the researcher/s may seek assistance from a language/technical expert to address these inconsistencies.

 

Responses: The language quality of the manuscript is improved. The score based on Willey language checker is 91 %

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf