CITISE
ISSN 2409-7616
2024;1(39)
Pedagogical sciences
Downloads

Nikolaeva N.N., Lezhneva E.B.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIGITAL AND TRADITIONAL READING: TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE

UDC 378.147

DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/2409-7616.2024.1.35

Nikolaeva N.N.1 (Moscow, Russian Federation) – nnn55n73@mail.ru; Lezhneva E.B.1 (Moscow, Russian Federation) – ekatlezhneva@mail.ru

1Bauman Moscow State Technical University

Abstract. The paper considers technical students’ attitudes towards digital reading and its difference from traditional print-based reading. The aim consists in establishing and analyzing this difference from the students’ perspective, as well as the factors influencing their choice of digital or print texts. Both the relevance and novelty are determined by still insufficient scientific knowledge of the new digital technologies’ integration into the university educational environment, its participants (n = 222) – first-to-third year students of Russian technical university, as well as by the data obtained.  It allows us to identify both formal and cognitive aspects of these differences. We also formulate some advice on how to use digital reading in learning and teaching. Based on the results of the study, we give some didactic recommendations for developing students’ digital reading skills. The research methodology includes theoretical analysis of scientific and methodological papers. We use questionnaires, pedagogical observation and interviewing, elements of quantitative and statistical analysis, processing, and interpretation of the empirical data. The results demonstrate that the difference between digital and traditional reading has cognitive, situational, discursive, and functional-pragmatic grounds. Students make their practical choice in favor of digital reading, making a clear distinction between reading digital and printed texts. They describe differences between textual linearity and volume, length and brevity, skimming and analytical reading, content scanning and acquisition, mobility and stativity of media, visual and tactile perception, availability of translation, vocabulary, and reference resources. However, they understand the symbiotic interaction between technology and cognition in the modern world. Thus, university teachers need to reorganize the educational material focusing on the digital way of its perception, interpretation, and assimilation.

Keywords: digital reading, traditional reading, academic reading, cognitive skills, reading awareness.

References:

  1. Voiskounsky A.E., Solodov M.Yu. How features of digital text affect reading efficiency and comprehension. Literature review. Psychology in Education, 2020, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 134–142. (In Russian). DOI: 10.33910/2686-9527-2020-2-2-134-142
  2. Girenok F.I. Clip Consciousness. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2016. 256 p. ISBN 978-5-392-19235-9
  3. Kupreshchenko O.F. Experimental Study of the Perception Features of Videos with Subtitles in Different Formats When Teaching a Foreign Language.  International Postgraduate Journal. Russian language abroad, 2020, no. 1, pp. 27–32. (In Russian). URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/myyesv
  4. Lebedeva M.Yu., Veselovskaya T.S., Kupreshchenko O.F. Features of perception and understanding of digital texts: interdisciplinary view. Perspectives of Science and Education, 2020, no. 46 (4), pp. 74-98. (In Russian). DOI: 10.32744/pse.2020.4.5
  5. Lebedeva M.Yu. Strategies of Reading Digital Texts for Performing Educational Reading Tasks: Study Based on the Think-Aloud Protocols. Educational Studies Moscow, 2022, no. 1. pp. 244–270. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2022-1-244-270
  6. Lizunova I.V., Van der Weel A., Garcia-Febo L. et al. Reading on paper and screens? Advantages, disadvantages and digital inequality. Bibliosphere, 2020, no 3, pp. 45–57. (In Russian). DOI: 10.20913/1815-3186-2020-3-45-57
  7. Lombina T.N., Mansurov V A., Yurchenko O.V. Literacy Problems in the New Digital Reality (By the Example of Schoolchildren). Part I. Sociologicheskaja nauka I social’naja praktika, 2019, no. 4, pp. 97–110. (In Russian). DOI: 10.19181/snsp.2019.7.4.6803
  8. Shapiro O.A. Argumentative Behavior in the Context of Electronic Textual Culture. Scientific Notes of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Philosophy. Political science. Culturology, 2019, vol. 5(71), pp. 30–41. (In Russian). URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/csemvn
  9. Shatilov S.F., Smirnov I.B. Communicative-cognitive and culturally country-specific concept of teaching a foreign language in a secondary school. Pyatigorsk, 1998, pp. 71-72.
  10. Ackerman R., Lauterman T. Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 2012, vol, 28(5), pp. 1816–1828. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023
  11. Alsalem M.A. Exploring metacognitive strategies utilizing digital books: Enhancing reading comprehension among deaf and hard of hearing students in Saudi Arabian higher education settings.  Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2018, vol. 56(5), pp. 645–674. DOI: 10.1177/0735633117718226
  12. Anderson N. J. Scrolling, clicking, and reading English: Online reading strategies in a second/foreign language. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 2003, vol. 3(3), pp. 1–33. URL: http://www.readingmatrix.com
  13. Baker S., Field C., Lee J.S. et al. Supporting students’ academic literacies in post-COVID-19 times: Developing digital videos to develop students’ critical academic reading practices. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 2021 vol. 18(4), pp. 5-28. DOI: 10.53761/1.18.4.5
  14. Barron N. Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World. New York, Oxford University Press Publ., 2015. 320 p. ISBN: 0199315760, 9780199315765
  15.  Baron N. How we read now: Strategic choices for print, screen, and audio. Oxford, Oxford University Press Publ., 2021. 304 p. ISBN-10: ‎ 019008409X
  16. Carr N. The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. New York, Norton Publ., 2011. 276 p. ISBN 0393072223
  17. Chen K.T.C. The correlation of EFL graduate students’ strategies and attitude toward reading English e-journal articles. International Journal of Instruction, 2023, vol. 16(2), pp. 1059-1076. DOI: 10.29333/iji.2023.16256a 
  18. Cheng R.T.J. Reading online in foreign languages: A study of strategy use.  International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2016, vol. 17(6), pp. 164–182. DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2567
  19. Chevet G., Baccino T., Vinter A.  et al. What breaks the flow of reading? A study on characteristics of attentional disruption during digital reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022, vol. 13, id 987964, pp. 1-14. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987964
  20. Coiro J. Toward a multifaceted heuristic of digital reading to inform assessment, research, practice, and policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 2021, vol. 56(1), pp. 9–31. DOI: 10.1002/rrq.302
  21. D’Ambra J., Wilson C. ., Akter S. Affordance theory and e-books: Evaluating the e-reading experience using netnography. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 2019, vol. 23(5), pp. 873–892. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-017-1086-1
  22. DeStefano D., LeFevre J.A. Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in human behavior, 2007, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1616–1641. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012
  23. Eze S.C., Chinedu-Eze V.C., Okike C.K. et al. Factors infuencing the use of e-learning facilities by students in a private Higher Education Institution (HEI) in a developing economy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2020, vol. 7, pp. 1-33. DOI:  10.1057/s41599-020-00624-6
  24. Hillesund T. Digital reading spaces: How expert readers handle books, the Web and electronic paper. First Monday, 2010, vol. 15(4), pp. 1-15. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v15i4.2762
  25. Huang H. C. Online reading strategies at work: What teachers think and what students do. ReCALL, 2013, vol. 25(3), pp. 340–358. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344013000153
  26. Kuzminova M.V. A digital text as the means of integrating informational technologies into teaching English. Russian Linguistic Bulletin, 2016, vol. 4(8), pp. 61-70. DOI: 10.18454/RULB.8.16
  27. Lea M.R., Jones S. Digital literacies in higher education: Exploring textual and technological practice. Studies in Higher Education, 2011, vol. 36(4), pp. 377–393. DOI: 10.1080/03075071003664021
  28. Leong L.W., Ibrahim O., Dalvi-Esfahani M. et al. The moderating effect of experience on the intention to adopt mobile social network sites for pedagogical purposes: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Education and Information Technologies, 2018, vol. 23, pp. 2477–2498. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-018-9726-2
  29. Li J. Development and validation of second language online reading strategies inventory. Computers & Education 2020, vol. 145, pp. 2-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103733
  30. Lin Y., Yu Z. Extending Technology Acceptance Model to higher-education students’ use of digital academic reading tools on computers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2023, vol. 20:34, pp. 1-24. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-023-00403-8
  31. Liu Z. Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 2005, vol. 61(6), pp. 700–712. DOI: 10.1108/00220410510632040
  32. Mangen A., Walgermo B.R., Brønnick K. Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 2013, vol. 58, pp. 61–68. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
  33. Miller M.D. Minds online: Teaching effectively with technology.  Harvard, Harvard University Press Publ., 2016.  296 p. ISBN 9780674660021
  34. Myrberg C., Wiberg N. Screen vs. paper: What is the difference for reading and learning? Insights, 2015, vol. 28(2), pp. 49–54. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.236   
  35. Pálsdóttir Á. Advantages and disadvantages of printed and electronic study material perspectives of university students. Information Research, 2019, vol. 24(2), pp. 8-28. 
  36. Schwabe A., Kosch L., Hajo G. Book readers in the digital age: Reading practices and media technologies. Mobile Media & Communication, 2023, vol. 11(3), pp. 367–390. DOI: 10.1177/20501579221122208
  37. Soroya S. H., Ameen K. Millennials’ Reading behavior in the digital age: A case study of Pakistani university students. Journal of Library Administration, 2020, vol. 60(5), pp. 559–577. DOI: 10.1080/01930826.2020.1760563
  38. Tabbers H.K., Martens R.L., Van Merriënboer J.J.G. Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British journal of educational psychology, 2004, vol. 74, no 1, pp. 71-81. DOI:  10.1348/000709904322848824
  39. Taki S. Metacognitive online reading strategy use: Readers’ perceptions in L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading, 2016, vol. 39(4), pp. 409-427. DOI: 10.1111/1467- 9817.12048
  40. Wolf M. Reader, come home: The reading brain in a digital world. – New York, NY: Harper, 2018. 272 p. ISBN-10:0062388789
  41. Woody W.D., Daniel D.B., Baker C.A. E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 2010, vol. 55(3), pp. 945–948. DOI:  10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.005
  42. Wu M., Chen S.C. Graduate students’ usage of and attitudes towards e-books: Experiences from Taiwan. Program, 2011, vol. 45(3), pp. 294–307.

For citation: Nikolaeva N.N., Lezhneva E.B. Difference between digital and traditional reading: technical university students’ perspective. CITISE, 2024, no. 1, pp. 404-424. DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/2409-7616.2024.1.35

ЦИТИСЭ © 2024
ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 59069 / ISSN 2409-7616