Abstract
The purpose of this article is to identify differences in the comprehension of print and digital media texts among young adults. This is due to the paradigm of transactional communication models (Yaros 2009 et al.), which assumes interaction between the medium and the audience, which corresponds to current changes in the media environment (Herkman 2008) and the accelerated digitization of mass media. The discussion of interaction with electronic texts and hypertexts (Singer 2017; Mangen 2013; DeStefano 2007 and others) opens up new research horizons and topics. Researchers from abroad (Norway, UK, etc.) have reported conflicting results regarding the level of comprehension of print and digital media texts, due to the length of the text, type of digital medium, target groups, etc. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of digital communication in both media and other areas (education). In order to solve the formulated research problems, a descriptive-mapping and correlation research plan was developed, using a standardized method adapted to the digital environment. A total of 486 respondents were surveyed, 173 of whom met the criteria for participation in both measurements, with an average age of 21.82. The results (compiled using MS Excel and SPSS software) show that there is no difference in the level of comprehension of media texts presented in print and digital form. At the same time, we found that although the values of correlation coefficients indicate that a higher level of text difficulty can lead to lower text comprehension scores (negative “r” values), a higher level of text difficulty is not related to the level of text comprehension. The results are discussed, not only limitations but also broader contexts (e.g., non-cognitive factors) are considered, and some implications for media practice and education are proposed.
References
Benjamin Rebekah George. 2012. “Reconstructing readability: Recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty.” Educational Psychology Review 24(1). 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9181-8.
View in Google Scholar
Björnsson Carl‑ Hugo. 1968. Läsbarhet. Stockholm.
View in Google Scholar
Blinkhorn Stephen F. 1985. (Slovak version, 1993). Kollárik Teodor, Kováčová Eva, Kuklišová Mária, Urminská Ľubica, Ritomský Alojz. Hodnotenie managerských predpokladov [Graduate and Managerial Assessment]. Príručka [Handbook]. T-42. Psychometric Research Unit The Hatfield Polytechnic Hatfield, Herts, Bratislava.
View in Google Scholar
Coscarelli Carla Viana. 2011. “Examining Reading Comprehension through the use of Continuous Texts and Hypertexts.” Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 4(9). 44–68. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.3145.
View in Google Scholar
Crossley Scott, Heintz Aron, Suh Choi Joon, Batchelor Jordan, Karimi Mehrnoush, Malatinszky Agnes. 2023. “A large‑ scaled corpus for assessing text readability.” Behavior Research Methods 55(2). 491–507. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01802-x.
View in Google Scholar
DeStefano Diana, LeFevre Jo‑ Anne. 2007. “Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review.” Computers in Human Behavior 23(3). 1616–1641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012.
View in Google Scholar
Delgado Pablo, Salmerón Ladislao. 2021. “The inattentive on‑ screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure.” Learning and Instruction 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101396.
View in Google Scholar
Eutsler Lauren, Trotter Julia. 2020. “Print or iPad? Young children’s text type shared reading preference and behaviors in comparison to parent predictions and at‑ home practices.” Literacy Research and Instruction 59(4). 324–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2020.1777229.
View in Google Scholar
Fesel Sabine S., Segers Eliane, Verhoeven Ludo. 2018. “Individual variation in children’s reading comprehension across digital text types.” Journal of Research in Reading 41(1). 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12098.
View in Google Scholar
Godhe Anna‑ Lena, Sofkova Hashemi Sylvana, Stenliden Linnea. 2022. “Texts, Information and Multimodality in the Digital Age.” Educare 1. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.24834/educare.2022.1.1.
View in Google Scholar
Goodwin Amanda P., Cho Sun‑ Joo, Reynolds Dan, Brady Katherine, Salas Jorge. 2019. “Digital versus paper reading processes and links to comprehension for middle school students.” American Educational Research Journal 57(4). 1837–1867. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219890300.
View in Google Scholar
Husárová Zuzana. 2012. Zážitok multisenzorického čítania elektronickej literatúry [The experience of multisensory reading of electronic literature]. In: B. Suwara, Z. Husárová (ed.), V sieti strednej Európy: nielen o elektronickej literatúre [In the network of Central Europe: not only about electronic literature]. Bratislava: SAP a Ústav svetovej literatúry SAV, 91–101. https://monoskop.org/images/6/6a/Suwara_Bogumila_Husarova_Zuzana_eds_V_sieti_strednej_Europy_nielen_o_elektronickej_literature.pdf [access: 26.10.2023].
View in Google Scholar
Kauchak David, Leroy Gondy, Hogue Alan. 2017. “Measuring text difficulty using parse‐tree frequency.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68(9). 2088–2100. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23855.
View in Google Scholar
Kazazoğlu Semin. 2020. “Is printed‑ text the best choice? A mixed method case study on reading comprehension.” Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 16(1). 458–473. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712879.
View in Google Scholar
Kim Isok, Baltimore Krisztina, Imtiaz Ahmed Salman, Bhattacharya Biplab Sudhin, Lin Li. 2020. “Simple contents and good readability: Improving health literacy for LEP populations.” International Journal of Medical Informatics 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104230.
View in Google Scholar
Kretzschmar Franziska, Pleimling Diana, Hosemann Julia, Füssel Sabine, Bornkessel‑Schlesewsky Ina, Schlesewsky Matthias. 2013. “Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: Concurrent EEG‑ eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media.” PLoS One 8(2). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056178.
View in Google Scholar
Labašová Eva. 2005. “Analýza čitateľnosti učebných textov” [Readability analysis of teachings texts]. Materials Science and Technology 4(5). https://www.mtf.stuba.sk/sk/internetovy-casopis/2005/2005-cislo-4.html?page_id=2464 [access: 10.03.2024].
View in Google Scholar
Mangen Anne. 2010. “Point and click: Theoretical and phenomenological reflections on the digitization of early childhood education.” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 11(4). 415–431. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2010.11.4.415.
View in Google Scholar
Mangen Anne, Walgermo Bente R., Brønnick Kolbjørn. 2013. “Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension.” International Journal of Educational Research 58(1). 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002.
View in Google Scholar
Matricciani Emilio. 2023. “Readability indices do not say it all on a text readability.” Analytics 2(2). 296–314. https://doi.org/10.3390/analytics2020016.
View in Google Scholar
Mikuláš Peter. 2011. Reality TV. Bratislava.
View in Google Scholar
Ogonowska Agnieszka, Walecka‑ Rynduch Agnieszka. 2024. Młodzi dorośli wobec dezinformacji. Katalogi i rzeczywiste profile kompetencji cyfrowych [Young adults in the face of disinformation. Digital competence catalogues and actual profiles]. Kraków.
View in Google Scholar
Průcha Jan. 1984. Hodnocení obtížnosti učebnic [Textbook difficulty rating]. Praha. 56–73.
View in Google Scholar
Scott Brian. 7 November, 2023. Lix Readability Formula: The Lasbarhetsindex Swedish Readability Formula. ReadabilityFormulas.com. https://readabilityformulas.com/the-lix-readability-formula/ [access: 26.02.2024].
View in Google Scholar
Singer Trakhman Lauren, Alexander Patricia. 2017. “Reading across mediums: Effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration.” The Journal of Experimental Education 85(1). 155–172.
View in Google Scholar
Sokol Augustín, Sokolová Jana. 2022. “Uplatňovanie pojmov čitateľnosť a zrozumiteľnosť, náročnosť a obtiažnosť vo vzťahu k textu” [Applying the concepts of readability and comprehensibility, difficulty and difficulty in relation to the text]. Jazyk a kultura 13(52). 71–80.
View in Google Scholar
Štatistická ročenka Slovenskej republiky [Statistical Yearbook of the Slovak Republic of the Slovak Republic]. 2021. https://slovak.statistics.sk/PortalTraffic/fileServlet?Dokument=9ef16f2e-1d17-499d-831a-96bd4da56a13 [access: 26.02.2024].
View in Google Scholar
Tomczyk Łukasz, Fedeli Laura, Włoch Anna, Limone Pierpaolo, Frania Monika, Guarini Piergiorgio, Szyszka Michał, Mascia Maria Lidia, Falkowska Joanna. 2023. “Digital Competences of Pre‑ service Teachers in Italy and Poland.” Tech Know Learn 28(2). 651–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09626-6.
View in Google Scholar
Tomczyk Łukasz, Szotkowski Rene, Fabiś Artur, Wąsiński Arkadiusz, Chudý Štefan, Neumeister Pavel. 2017. “Selected aspects of conditions in the use of new media as an important part of the training of teachers in the Czech Republic and Poland – differences, risks and threats.” Education and Information Technologies 22(3). 747–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9455-8.
View in Google Scholar
Wright Benjamin D., Stenner Jackson A. 2022. Readability and reading ability. In: Explanatory Models, Unit Standards, and Personalized Learning in Educational Measurement. William P. Fisher Jr., Paula J. Massengill (ed.) Singapore. 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3747-7_7.
View in Google Scholar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia de Cultura