The Influence of Media Multitasking on Moroccan English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Reading Habits

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This paper presents an interesting study exploring the impact of digital media on reading and multi-tasking. 

Overall, this is an intriguing study. I particularly appreciated how the author(s) disentangle the impact of digital distraction on academic reading from pleasure reading.  I do have some recommendations that would strengthen this manuscript further. 

Introduction

• The literature review relies heavily on older sources and those that are not peer-reviewed (e.g., The New Yorker and blogs).  The manuscript will be strengthened by incorporating recent relevant research. For example, page 3 has a discussion of how the internet displaced reading habits, but much of the literature cited is close to 20 years old.  It would be helpful to incorporate more current research, such as (but not limited to) Clinton-Lissell's (2021) meta-analysis at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9817.12372
• While the author(s) distinguish between academic and recreational reading, it would be helpful to tie this distinction to the literature.  Why consider them separately?  Why would digital media affect different effects on the two types of reading habits?
• It would be helpful to establish why the focus is on EFL teachers.  Would they be more or less likely to engage with digital media than other teachers (e.g., would they be likely to use the internet as a means of finding media to teach English?). I don't know if the data are available, but it might be helpful to have information about the language used for reading and digital activities. 
• A number of variables are presented in the method section without being introduced in the literature review.  It would be helpful to introduce them in the literature review. For example, why would it be important to consider years of teaching experience?  Why would teachers from rural vs. urban schools differ? Why does time of day matter? 
• Professional development (inservice and preservice) is included in the results section, but not in the methods or introduction.  Why would it be important to consider professional development in relation to digital distraction?

Methods

• In general, the method section is thoughtfully presented. I particularly appreciated the clarity in describing the selection of participants. It would be helpful to have more information about the participants - were they primary, secondary and/or tertiary instructors?  (would you expect that to make a difference).  Do you have the teachers' ages?  Could that be confounded with years of experience?

Results

• The tables are somewhat challenging for the reader, as it's not clear what all the variables are.  For example, in Table 2, the first variable is "No, not at all | Yes, some"  It's not quite clear what it's referring to.  It would be helpful to begin with the variable/construct tested and then below it present the categories.
• It would also be helpful to include the p values in Tables 2 and 3.
• I appreciate the care in testing the models' fit - it would also be helpful to present the variance explained by each model.  Although the tests used are great sources of evidence, presenting the variance explain can help the reader understand just how well the models explain the variance.
• In general, the author(s) did a nice job walking the reader through the logistic regression.  It would be helpful to more explicitly walk the reader through one of the odds ratios and explain how to interpret it.  Doing so would make the article more accessible to those less familiar with logistic regression.

Discussion

• The interpretation of the findings is sound. However, it would be helpful to connect the study more with theory (and updating the literature review).  It would also be helpful to explicitly discuss the implications for theory and practice.

 

 

Author Response

• Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This paper presents an interesting study exploring the impact of digital media on reading and multi-tasking. Overall, this is an intriguing study. I particularly appreciated how the author(s) disentangle the impact of digital distraction on academic reading from pleasure reading. I do have some recommendations that would strengthen this manuscript further.

Thank you very much for your kind words about the study and for your valuable recommendations, all of which have been incorporated throughout the manuscript.

• The introduction relies on outdated and non-peer-reviewed sources; it should incorporate recent scholarly research like Clinton-Lissell’s (2021). Key distinctions, such as academic vs. recreational reading and the focus on EFL teachers, need stronger justification. Additionally, variables like teaching experience, school location, time of day, and professional development should be introduced earlier and linked to digital distraction.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. As suggested, we have revised the introduction section, particularly by enhancing the connection between variables such as teaching experience, school location, and time of day digital distractions. These variables are now introduced earlier in the manuscript, accompanied by appropriate theoretical framing and citations.

• Methods: In general, the method section is thoughtfully presented. I particularly appreciated the clarity in describing the selection of participants. It would be helpful to have more information about the participants - were they primary, secondary and/or tertiary instructors? (would you expect that to make a difference). Do you have the teachers' ages? Could that be confounded with years of experience?

We have included additional demographic details about the participants (e.g., age) and acknowledged the potential confounding between age and years of experience in the limitations section. Furthermore, we clarified that all survey participants were secondary English teachers, and this has been explicitly stated in the text.

• The results tables need clearer labeling, especially in Table 2, and should include p-values for better statistical reporting. Presenting the variance explained by each model would add clarity. While the logistic regression is well presented, interpreting an odds ratio with an example would make the analysis more accessible to all readers.

We have enhanced the clarity of the tables by restructuring the presentation of the variables. P-values have been included for all reported statistics, and we have added information on the variance explained by each model. Additionally, we included an example interpretation of odds ratios to make the analysis more accessible to all readers.

• Discussion: The interpretation of the findings is sound. However, it would be helpful to connect the study more with theory (and updating the literature review). It would also be helpful to explicitly discuss the implications for theory and practice.

We have strengthened the discussion by more explicitly linking our findings to theoretical frameworks in the literature. References have been updated throughout, and we have added a dedicated subsection on the implications for both theory and practice in the discussion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores an increasingly relevant issue: how media multitasking affects the reading habits of Moroccan EFL teachers. The topic is timely and the dataset is substantial. The time-diary methodology is a strong point. However, the manuscript needs considerable revision to clarify its aims, improve coherence, and correct formal issues. Below I offer specific suggestions organized by section and page number.

Abstract (p. 1)
The abstract omits key elements such as the sample size and design. It would help readers to know the number of participants and the method used, even briefly. The final sentence remains too general; it refers to “digital distractions” and “focused reading habits” but does not state clearly what was found. A brief summary of significant predictors would make the contribution clearer.

Introduction (pp. 1–2)
Lines 1–8: The first paragraph opens with a general statement about digital life that could appear in any paper. It doesn't establish the academic relevance of the topic.
Lines 24–30: The reason for focusing on EFL teachers is mentioned but not fully developed. It would help to link teacher reading habits with professional development or knowledge construction.
Lines 33–41: The shift from multitasking literature to Moroccan teachers is abrupt. The authors could build a stronger bridge here.
Lines 42–50: The research gap is only implied. There’s a brief mention that few studies focus on teachers, but this is not clearly tied to existing gaps in methods, population, or theory. A direct statement is needed to establish what this paper adds.
Lines 51–55: The research questions are stated, but RQ3 is too vague. If the focus is on differences between academic and recreational reading, the question should specify what kind of differences are being tested and which variables are involved.

Literature Review (pp. 2–4)
The literature cited is relevant, but the structure is overly linear. Several sections follow a “one-study-per-sentence” pattern. There is limited synthesis or comparison between sources.
Lines 59–66: One idea (“avid readers maintaining habits”) is repeated twice within the same paragraph. This could be streamlined.
Lines 108–115: The expression “a more nuanced understanding” can be replaced with something clearer, such as “a more detailed interpretation.”
Page 4, lines 159–164: The closing paragraph restates the general aim but misses the opportunity to make the research gap explicit. A sharper final paragraph could help anchor the review.

Methods (pp. 5–7)
Page 5, lines 175–190: The description of participants is clear, but more detail on recruitment would be useful. It’s unclear whether this was a convenience sample or if any stratification was applied.
Page 6, lines 214–220: The phrasing around dependent variables is vague. “Extent of time displacement” is too abstract; a clearer description like “self-reported reduction in reading time” would improve readability.
Page 7, lines 256–262: The model is well explained, but some of the language is dense. The paragraph could be split for clarity.
Line 287: Listwise deletion is justified, but it would be good to note why no alternative approach was considered. This would improve transparency.

Results (pp. 8–13)
Page 8, line 303: Typo (“sutdy partcipants”) needs correction.
Pages 8–10: Multiple typos are present—“readign,” “beign,” “dacademic,” etc. These errors affect readability and should be corrected throughout.
Page 9, Table 2: The heading incorrectly refers to “OLS coefficients,” though ordinal regression was used. This must be corrected.
Page 10, line 376: The section heading repeats “Research Question 2” when it should say RQ3.
Page 11, lines 437–441: There’s a mismatch between the findings and the interpretation. For instance, the suggestion that more social network use leads to less displacement in recreational reading contradicts initial assumptions, yet this is not discussed. A theoretical explanation or caveat is needed.
Figures 1 and 2 are referenced but missing from the PDF. Make sure they’re included and correctly labeled.

Discussion (pp. 13–14)
Lines 473–478: The summary of results could be more structured. Connecting each finding back to the original research question would help the reader follow the interpretation.
Lines 479–494: The claim that teachers develop “effective multitasking strategies” is speculative. It would be safer to suggest that some teachers might have routines that reduce interference.
Lines 495–501: The contrast between television and social media is interesting. The authors could briefly refer to task-switching or cognitive control to support their interpretation.

Limitations and Future Directions (p. 15)
Lines 524–526: Generalizability is noted, but not developed. Consider discussing the potential impact of local infrastructure or educational policy in Morocco on digital practices.
Line 538: The suggestion to link displacement and well-being is interesting and could be taken further. Future research could examine how multitasking may relate to stress or workload in teaching contexts.

Conclusion (pp. 15–16)
Lines 547–553: The conclusion repeats earlier points. It could be more concise. The final sentence might point more clearly to implications for teacher training or professional reading habits in digital environments.

Author Response

This paper explores an increasingly relevant issue: how media multitasking affects the reading habits of Moroccan EFL teachers. The topic is timely and the dataset is substantial. The time-diary methodology is a strong point. However, the manuscript needs considerable revision to clarify its aims, improve coherence, and correct formal issues. Below I offer specific suggestions organized by section and page number.

Thank you very much for your kind words about the relevance and importance of the study and for your valuable recommendations, all of which have been incorporated throughout the manuscript.

Abstract (p. 1)
The abstract omits key elements such as the sample size and design. It would help readers to know the number of participants and the method used, even briefly. The final sentence remains too general; it refers to “digital distractions” and “focused reading habits” but does not state clearly what was found. A brief summary of significant predictors would make the contribution clearer.

We have revised the abstract to include key methodological details, such as the sample size (n=700) and study design (time-diary survey). Additionally, we replaced general statements about digital distractions with specific findings on the significant predictors of displacement, including school type and media multitasking activities.

The introduction begins with a broad statement that lacks academic focus and does not clearly establish the study’s relevance. The rationale for focusing on EFL teachers needs stronger development, especially in linking reading habits to professional growth. Transitions between topics are abrupt, and the research gap is only implied rather than clearly stated. Additionally, Research Question 3 is too vague and should specify the differences and variables being examined.

We have restructured the introduction to establish stronger academic relevance from the outset. A more compelling rationale for EFL teachers has been developed by explicitly linking reading habits to professional growth and knowledge development. Transitions between topics have been improved, and the research gap is now clearly stated. Additionally, Research Question 3 has been revised to specify the differences and variables being examined.

The literature review includes relevant sources but lacks synthesis, often presenting studies in a one-per-sentence format. Some ideas are repeated and could be streamlined for clarity. Certain phrases, like “a more nuanced understanding,” should be made more precise. The final paragraph restates the aim but misses the chance to clearly highlight the research gap.

We have enhanced the literature review to include additional recent studies and a synthesis of key findings. Repetitions have been removed, and the findings have been streamlined for better clarity. Additionally, we’ve added a paragraph highlighting unexplored areas highlighting research gaps.

The methods section is generally clear but would benefit from more detail on participant recruitment and sampling strategy. Some variable descriptions are vague and should be made more concrete for better readability. The explanation of the model is thorough but dense and could be split into shorter paragraphs. Justifying listwise deletion is good, but mentioning why other methods weren’t considered would enhance transparency.

We have provided more detail on participant recruitment and the sampling strategy. The descriptions of variables have been made more concrete, and the explanation of the model has been broken into shorter paragraphs for better readability. Additionally, we have expanded our justification for listwise deletion, clarifying why other methods were not considered.

The results section contains multiple typos that need correction to improve readability. Table 2 incorrectly labels “OLS coefficients” despite using ordinal regression, and the RQ3 heading is mislabeled as RQ2. There's a mismatch between some findings and their interpretation, which requires further explanation or theoretical context. Additionally, Figures 1 and 2 are referenced but missing and should be included and properly labeled.

We have corrected all typos throughout the results section. Figures 1 and 2 have been properly included and labelled in the revised manuscript. 

Discussion (pp. 13–14)
Lines 473–478: The summary of results could be more structured. Connecting each finding back to the original research question would help the reader follow the interpretation.
Lines 479–494: The claim that teachers develop “effective multitasking strategies” is speculative. It would be safer to suggest that some teachers might have routines that reduce interference.
Lines 495–501: The contrast between television and social media is interesting. The authors could briefly refer to task-switching or cognitive control to support their interpretation.

We have restructured the discussion to link each finding back to the original research questions. Claims about "effective multitasking strategies" have been revised to acknowledge the speculative nature of this interpretation, suggesting instead that some teachers may have routines that reduce interference. Additionally, we have incorporated references to task-switching and cognitive control literature to support our interpretation of the contrasting effects of television and social media.

Limitations and Future Directions (p. 15)
Lines 524–526: Generalizability is noted, but not developed. Consider discussing the potential impact of local infrastructure or educational policy in Morocco on digital practices.
Line 538: The suggestion to link displacement and well-being is interesting and could be taken further. Future research could examine how multitasking may relate to stress or workload in teaching contexts.

We have expanded the discussion on generalizability to consider the potential impact of local infrastructure and educational policy in Morocco on digital practices. Additionally, we have developed the connection between displacement and well-being, suggesting future research to explore how multitasking may relate to stress and workload in teaching contexts.

Conclusion (pp. 15–16)
Lines 547–553: The conclusion repeats earlier points. It could be more concise. The final sentence might point more clearly to implications for teacher training or professional reading habits in digital environments.

We have eliminated repetition in the conclusion and added clearer implications for teacher training and professional reading habits in digital environments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

During the discussion the author(s) mentioned some limits of the research (many teachers but self-declaration). In the conclusion it's important to promote some "guidelines" for the teachers or the possibility of a research also with interviews. 

Author Response

Thank you for this excellent suggestion. In the conclusion, we have added practical guidelines to help teachers manage digital distractions and improve their reading practices. We have also recommended future research involving interviews to gain deeper qualitative insights into teachers' experiences with media multitasking. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this revised manuscript.  This paper has improved a great deal. I particularly appreciate the way in which the author(s) engaged with more current literature. Although the paper has improved a great deal, I still have some additional recommendations.

• There are a number of unsubstantiated claims in the introduction, such as reading being the primary means of professional development for teachers (p. 2), the role of contextual factors on access and norms of using technology for professional use (p. 2), the claim that ICT supports online and offline reading practices (p. 6).
• On p. 5, it would be particularly helpful to update the literature (lines 198-220) in the discussion of the relationship between media consumption and reading habits, particularly since that literature is at least 15 years old. The availability of media has changed, and patterns of its consumption have been affected by the pandemic.
• On p. 6, the discussion about the impact of multitasking on cognition may be tied more to reading habits (given that none of the outcomes of the study were connected to outcomes)
• On p. 7, the manuscript alludes to studies of preservice teachers' reading practices, but doesn't explain what they are
• It would be helpful to cite some sources (e.g., government documents) to describe the Moroccan context
• In multiple places, the manuscript alludes to the effects of multitasking and media on cognitive processes (rather broadly). However, the study does not directly address cognitive processing. 

Methods

• Is there any evidence for the reliability and validity of the survey?  Had it been piloted?

Results

• I recognize that tracking changes can be confusing (especially with both versions of the text visible).  It appears that (p.13) section 5.3 addresses the effect of media use on recreational reading rather than academic reading.  Please be sure the text and headings/tables are consistent.
• Figure 2 was confusing.  The x-axis appeared to be repetitive without a clear order.  It would be helpful to have each value (a little, some, most, a lot) appear only once on the axis.

Discussion

• p. 20.  The authors suggest that the findings may reflect intentional rapid switching between social media and reading. However, the data do not allow for such an interpretation as teachers were not asked to describe how they navigate both.
• The recommendations in the conclusion are stronger than is warranted by the findings. The study is correlational in nature, and cannot provide insight into the causal effects of these recommendations

Author Response

Thank you for the additional recommendations, which have been addressed in the attached revised manuscript. Please let us know if any further changes are needed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your thoughtful revisions. The manuscript now presents a clearer rationale and a well-developed argument supported by appropriate theoretical and empirical references. The research questions are more precise, the design is clearly explained, and the discussion draws effectively on relevant literature. The regression model in Table 2 is mislabeled as OLS, which should be corrected to reflect the actual method used.

Author Response

Thank you for the additional recommendations, which have been addressed in the attached revised manuscript. Please let us know if any further changes are needed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf