MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2117499497 · doi:10.1108/nlw-05-2014-0051

A study of print and computer-based reading to measure and compare rates of comprehension and retention

2014· article· en· W2117499497 sur OpenAlexaff
Jackie Young

Notice bibliographique

RevueNew Library World · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueMedia, Communication, and Education
Établissements canadiensOntario College of Art and DesignUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNewspaperReading (process)ComprehensionComputer scienceHypertextReading comprehensionThe InternetGuardianPresentation (obstetrics)Chunking (psychology)PsychologyWorld Wide WebMultimediaAdvertisingLinguisticsArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose – This paper aims to observe, measure and record comparative cognitive processes in print and online to explain the differences, if any, in the readers’ information-gathering processes and their subsequent comprehension and retention of information. It also examined the strategies that readers adopt that differ from print when reading online. Standardized reading comprehension scores were also collected. The results indicated that the participants demonstrated functional equivalency in both media, but they had a preference for print. The linear individualistic mentality learned through print gave the study group participants the skills to successfully navigate through the dense web of information that constitutes the Internet. Story presentation and hierarchy, key elements of the print design process, are less evident or absent online. As a consequence, as previous research has demonstrated, online readers are more poorly informed than print readers – but not in this case. The research from this study demonstrates that when the authors of the print media are those who also control the integrity of online content, print and Web readers are equally well-informed. Design/methodology/approach – Coded texts from The Guardian Newspaper, The Economist and The New Yorker were used in a media lab to measure the study group’s ability to read and retrieve information from the publications’ print and Web editions. They were scored on how well they retrieved the core information in the articles from both media. Focus-group sessions probed for information about reading in print and online at the end of the reading sessions. This gave valuable insight into the coping strategies that the participants used when engaging with online texts. There were two sessions, each of three hours, and the participants were university students. Findings – The study results show that the group participants were functionally equivalent in both print and online reading. However, they had a profound distrust for online content in general, which they found to be inaccurate and unstable. Web sites, they conclude, never achieve “fixity”. When reading online, the study group scrolls through the text to retrieve facts and then goes to a print source to verify the accuracy of the content. They do not engage with the content online as they do with print. While acknowledging that the publications in the study were reputable and of a high quality, the group still found scrolling through the Web sites tedious. The printed page was to the study group, a cultural object. Research limitations/implications – This was a small study with 11 participants in a controlled environment on two evenings, each lasting three hours. While the readings were intense, the researchers saw no evidence of fatigue. The group were very vocal during the focus-group sessions and gave valuable insights into the reading process. The stories were exactly the same in both media, were well-written and edited. Typographic cues that give the reader priorities when engaging with the texts were transferred from the print to the online editions. HTML texts to this group are an impediment to the reading process, and the amount of texts require too much time to read. A larger study with a more diverse readership reading more general news is required to verify the findings. This is being planned. As one from the study group stated “I grew up with print but younger people do not have the benefits of print”. Practical implications – Typography provides a language with visual form and through that form, conveys the meaning of a text. The print reader decodes what she reads on the printed page, allowing her to quickly absorb and parse large amount of text, discarding redundant content. The question now becomes which print-reading operations are being transferred to the process of extracting relevant facts. Five centuries of continuous improvement of print communications have yet to be successfully transferred to the Internet. The visual aspects of print, the color advertisement, the photograph and elements that aided the print reader’s navigation are an intrusion on the Web. A new form of navigation, one that is more elegant and intuitive than the present, is required. Social implications – The social implications of reading are a fundamental characteristic of any society. The codex provided the model for the book, the newspaper and the magazine. These became and still are trusted sources of information. When the study group gets a Twitter or Facebook prompt on a breaking news story, they check a trusted broadcasting source for confirmation of its accuracy. If the findings of this study are confirmed in subsequent research studies on the process of reading online, it will have profound implications for the industry. Publishing to be successful requires the reader to engage with and respond to a message. There is strong evidence that this is not the case with what the advertising industry would consider an important core audience, the Internet “reader”. Originality/value – As a newspaper and magazine designer and teacher, the author been increasingly concerned with the transfer of information from the printed page to the computer screen. Many studies have been conducted on aspects of reading and designing for online reading. They are very often inaccurate and as such inconclusive. Reading is complex and measuring it difficult. The author conducted this study as both a designer and from an academic perspective. It is hoped that it encourages a robust debate.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,017

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,084
Tête enseignante GPT0,322
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations23
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNew Library WorldMême sujetMedia, Communication, and EducationTravaux en français237 207