Moroccan Educators’ Pedagogic Roles towards Digital Sustainable Progress: The Case of Media Literacy Practices

https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v8i4.1881

Authors

  • Youssef Naciri Naciri Youssef Applied Linguistics and Language Development Research Group, Moulay Ismail University, Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences, Meknes, Morocco

Keywords:

Media Literacy, Moroccan educators, Language Teaching/Learning

Abstract

This article analyzes Moroccan educators’ pedagogic roles in Media Literacy Practices (MLP’s). Precisely, it seeks to identify factors triggering MLP’s among Moroccan Language Educators (MLE); how they help build strong future ties for students and stakeholders (policy/decision makers, administrators, and parents) using Media, be it digital or print, in their everyday life. This study also aims to understand the gaps they need to fill from theory to practice in meeting new 21st century demands, particularly in educational settings, be they on-site, remote or hybrid. These major points are addressed: (1) the kinds of media tools MLE use most; (2) the suitable practices considered for use and teaching in language courses; (3) MLE’s opinions about the impact of Media Literacy on both educators and students in their personal and professional lives; and (4) the feasibility of supporting the teaching and learning of Media Literacy. This study uses a mixed-methods approach with a Likert scale survey. The target population consists of 44 MLE from two language specialties, namely Arabic and English. The findings reveal different views supporting pedagogical MLP’s for good links between everyday life realities and digital transformations. Finally, MLP’s require both practitioners’ and students’ positive and ethical contributions for a successful experience.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2026-07-01

How to Cite

Naciri, Y. (2026). Moroccan Educators’ Pedagogic Roles towards Digital Sustainable Progress: The Case of Media Literacy Practices. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 8(4), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v8i4.1881