Volume 28 Number 1, 2024 Comparative efficacy of digital and nondigital texts on reading comprehension and EFL learners’ perceptions of their merits

Comparative efficacy of digital and nondigital texts on reading comprehension and EFL learners’ perceptions of their merits

Repository record updated on:
Aug. 3, 2024, 1:11 p.m.
Database record updated on:
Dec. 16, 2024, 7:21 p.m.
Last Harvested on:
Dec. 16, 2024, 7:21 p.m.
bitstream:
[['https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/6b7d61d7-781f-482b-99f8-916d8aed6d2a/download', '28_01_10125-73589.pdf']]
bitstream_txt:
[['https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/953666a9-ec20-43c4-bd1e-7bd0cbc70f93/download', 'full_text']]
collection:
Volume 28 Number 1, 2024
contributor.author:
Al-Seghayer, Khalid
date.accessioned:
2024-08-02T19:55:28Z
date.available:
2024-08-02T19:55:28Z
date.copyright:
2024
date.issued:
2024-08-05
description.abstract:
This study investigated English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ differential comprehension of paper-, e-, and web-texts and their perceived effects on reading comprehension. A multiple-choice test was administered in each form to 47 Saudi EFL learners, and General Estimating Equations (GEE) was used for within-subject observations of test scores for the text in each medium. Six questions assessed the form’s effect on literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension levels. To examine factors believed to influence comprehension, participants completed a 22-item survey of reading across media on which descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed. Semi-structured interviews also were conducted and were recorded, transcribed, coded, and categorized. The participants understood printed text significantly better on all three levels of reading comprehension, while e-texts’ effect was significantly greater than that of web-texts at the literal and inferential levels; however, the two differed negligibly at the evaluative level. Survey responses indicated better understanding and retention of information in printed text. EFL learners found that scrolling through e-text impaired comprehension, and interactive features in e- and web-text proved distracting, while numerous links in web-text led to cognitive overload and increased frustration; however, web-text’s non-linearity facilitated L2 reading comprehension. The interviews revealed various factors that allow a better understanding of printed text and its features that facilitated reading comprehension. The study’s implications and future research directions are discussed.
endingpage:
30
format.extent:
30
identifier.citation:
Al-Seghayer, K. (2024). Comparative efficacy of digital and nondigital texts on reading comprehension and EFL learners’ perceptions of their merits. Language Learning & Technology, 28(1), 1–31. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73589
identifier.issn:
1094-3501
identifier.uri:
https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73589
number:
1
publicationname:
Language Learning & Technology
publisher:
University of Hawaii National Foreign Language Resource Center Center for Language & Technology
rights.license:
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
rights.uri:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
site_url:
/item/10125-73589/
startingpage:
1
subject:
Comparative Ffficacy, Digital and Nondigital texts, Reading Comprehension, EFL learners, Perceptions
title:
Comparative efficacy of digital and nondigital texts on reading comprehension and EFL learners’ perceptions of their merits
type:
Article Text
volume:
28