Reading Digital News: Hypertextual Usage Habits and Learning Practices Among U.S. Communication Undergraduates

Öz

Hypertext as a nonlinear, computer-based or digital text that is now used along with conventional, linear printed text and can be described as a relatively advanced text type. Moreover, hypertextuality is among the characteristics which differentiate online news from printed news. While digital writing has become more advanced with hypertextuality, its impact on users’ reading habits has gained importance as an underlying matter. In this context, the present research aims to provide an analysis of users’ experiences of reading digital news in the context of hypertextuality. This study begins by summarizing the studies on hypertextuality and news users. Following this, a case study is presented to analyze newspaper users’ reading habits in a digital setting to propose empirical evidence for the theoretical ideas of poststructuralist thinkers on hypertextuality. This part focuses on the hypertext reception practices of UMASS/Amherst Department of Communication undergraduate students through analysis of their news consumption patterns via an online survey. Based on the findings, this study contributes to the literature regarding journalism, technology, and digital writing by identifying the advantages and disadvantages of reading digital news. Although hypertextuality invites both writers and users to think in a nonlinear and cooperative way, it also leads to polarized opinions and newly emerging ethical issues.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital news,online news,hypertext,users,newspaper reading

Kaynakça

1. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (M. Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
2. Barnet, B. (2000). Hypertext and association: Space, time and hypomnesis. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 6, 76–100.
3. Baron, D. P. (1994). Electoral competition with informed and uninformed voters. American Political Science Review, 88, 33–47.
4. Barthes, R. (1984). La mort de l’Auteur. In Essais critiques IV. Le Bruissement de la langue (pp. 61–67). Paris, France: Seuil. (Original work published 1968)
5. Bazerman, C. (2009). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts, In B. Charles & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how ıt does ıt (pp. 83–93). New York, NY: Routledge.
6. Beam, M. A., & Kosicki, G. M. (2014). Personalized news portals filtering systems and increased news exposure. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(1), 56–77.
7. Binark, M., & Löker, K. (2011). Sivil toplum örgütleri için bilişim rehberi [Informatics guide for non-governmental organizations]. Ankara, Turkey: Sivil Toplum Geliştirme Merkezi.
8. Birkerts, S. (2006). The gutenberg elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age. New York, NY: Faber and Faber.

9. Bolter, J. D. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext and the history of writing. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Bolter, J. D. (2003). Critical theory and the challenge of new media. In M.E. Hocks & M.R. Kendrick (Eds.), Eloquent images: Word and image in the age of new media (pp. 19–36). Massachusetts , MA:The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
11. Bucy, E. P. (2004). The interactivity paradox: Closer to the news but confused. In E. P. Bucy & J. E. Newhagen (Eds.), Media access: Social and psychological dimensions of new technology use (pp. 47–72). London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
12. Burnett, R. (2004). How images think? Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
13. Canavilhas, J. (2008). Hypertext newswriting effects on satisfaction, comprehension and attitudes. Retrieved from http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2008/papers/Canavilhas.pdf
14. Chen, C., & Rada, R. (1996). Interacting with Hypertext: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies, Human-Computer Interaction, 11(2), 125–156.
15. Clark, C. and Douglas, J. (2011). Young people’s reading and writing: An in-depth study focusing on enjoyment, behaviour, attitudes and attainment. London: National Literacy Trust.
16. Colleoni E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data, Journal of Communication, 64, 317–332.
17. Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey, IEEE Computer, 20(7), 17–41.
18. Dahlgren, P. (1996). Media logic in cyberspace: Repositioning journalism and its publics. Javnost/The Public, 3(3), 59–72.
19. De Stefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2005). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641.
20. Derrida, J. (1981). Writing and difference (A. Bass, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
21. Derrida, J. (1999). Platon’un eczanesi [Plato’s pharmacy] (Z. Direk, Trans.). Toplumbilim: Derrida Özel Sayısı, 10, 63–82.
22. Doherty, S. (2014). Hypertext and journalism: Paths for future research. Digital Journalism, 2(2), 124–139.
23. e Silva, E. C. (2016). Beyond links: Understanding meaning and control in political blogs, New Media & Society, 18(1), 82–98.
24. Eco, U. (1989). The open work (A. Cancogni, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
25. Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2000). Examining information processing on the world wide web using think aloud protocols. Media Psychology, 2, 219–244.
26. Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User-control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the web versus print. Communication Research, 28(1), 48–78.
27. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
28. Fredin, E. S. (1997). Rethinking the news story for the internet: Hyperstory prototypes and a model of the user. Columbia, SC: Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
29. Haneef, M., & Shuaib, M. (2010). Intertextuality and interactivity in hypertext reading of www.timesofindia.com. Journal of Creative Communications, 5(3), 189–205.
30. Heinonen, A. (1999). Journalism in the age of the net. Finland: University of Tampere Bookshop.
31. Hocks, M. E., & Kendrick, M. R. (2003). Introduction: Eloquent image. In M. E. Hocks & M. R. Kendrick (Eds.), Eloquent images: Word And image in the age of new media (pp. 1–16). England: The MIT Press.
32. Huang, S., & Orellana, P., & Capps, M. (2016). U.S. and Chilean college students’
33. reading practices: A cross-cultural perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 455–471.
34. Huesca, R., & Dervin, B. (2003). Hypertext and journalism: Audience respond to competing news narratives. In H. Jenkins & D. Thorburn (Eds.), Democracy and new media (pp. 281–306). Cambridge, London, UK: The MIT Press.
35. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39.
36. Jones, D. A. (2002). The polarization effect of new media message, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 158–174.
37. Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies. Canada: Routledge.
38. Kroker, A. (1996). Virtual capitalism. In S. Aronowitz, B. Martinsons & M. Menser (Eds.), Techno science and cyber culture (pp. 167–179). London, UK: Routledge.
39. Kellner, D. (2002). Critical perspectives on visual imagery in media and cyberculture. Journal of Visual Literacy, 22(1), 81–90.
40. Kirsner, S. (1997). Web of confusion. American Journalism Review, July (19), 34–39.
41. Landow, G. P. (1997). Hypertext 2.0., Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. London, UK: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
42. Landow, G. P. (2006). Hypertext 3.0: Critical theory and new media in an era of globalization. London, UK:The Johns Hopkins University Press.
43. Lassen, D. D. (2005). The effect of information on voter turnout: Evidence from a natural experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 103–118.
44. Lauren, M. S., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). Reading across mediums: Effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 155–172.
45. Lee, M. J. (2005). Expanding hypertext: Does it address disorientation? Depends on individuals’ adventurousness. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00255.x
46. Li, L. Y., Tseng, S-T., & Chen, G. D. (2016). Effect of hypertext highlighting on browsing, reading, and navigational performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 318–325.
47. Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media, Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
48. Meyrowitz, N. (1991). Hypertext – does it reduce cholesterol, too? In J. Nyce & P. Kahn (Eds.), From memex to hypertext: Vannevar Bush and the mind’s machine (pp. 287–318). Boston, MA: Academic Press.
49. Miall, D. (1997). Reading, hypertext and the fate of literature. Retrieved from www.arts.ualberta.ca/~dmiall/hypercad/opening.htm
50. Opgenhaffen, M. (2009). Multimedia, interactivity, and hypertext in online news: Effect on news processing and objective and subjective knowledge, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Faculteıt Sociale Wetenschappen.
51. Opgenhaffen, M., & d’Haenens, L. (2011). The impact of online news features on learning from news: A knowledge experiment. International Journal of Internet Science, 6(1), 8–28.
52. Patterson, N. G. (2000). Hypertext and the changing roles of reading. English Journal, November, 74–80.
53. Pew Research Center. (2008). Internet overtakes newspapers as news outlet. Washington. DC: Pew Research Center for The People & The Press.
54. Punch, K. F. (2005). Sosyal araştırmalara giriş: Nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar [Introduction to social research: Quantities and qualifications] (D. Bayrak, H. Bader Arslan & Z. Aköz, Trans.). Ankara, Turkey: Siyasal Kitabevi.
55. Robertson, G. L., & Hix, D. (2002). Making the computer accessible to mentally retarded adults, Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 171–185.
56. Rost, A. (2002, July). The concept of hypertext in digital journalism. 23 Conderence and General Assebly, IAMCR/AIECS/AIERI, Barcelona.
57. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., & Gunter, B. (2008). The Google generation: The information behavior of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 290–310.
58. Schneider, R. (2005). Hypertext narrative and the reader: A view from cognitive theory. European Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 197–208.
59. Slatin, J. (1992). Reading hypertext: Order and coherence in a new medium. In P. Delaney & G. P. Landow (Eds.), Hypermedia and Literary Studies (pp. 153-169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
61. Sunstein, C. R. (2004) Democracy and filtering. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 57–59.
62. Tremayne, M. (2004). The web of context: Applying network theory to the use of hyperlinks in journalism on the web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 237–253.

63. Turow, J. (2008). Introduction: On not taking the hyperlink for granted. In J. Turow & L. Tsui (Eds.), The hyperlinked society (pp. 1–18). Ann Arbor, MI:The University of Michigan Press.
64. Virilio, P. (2003). Enformasyon bombası [Information bomb] (İ. K. Şahin, Trans.), İstanbul, Turkey: Metis Yayınları.
65. Voss, A., Blatt, I., Boss, W., Goy, M., Kraska, L., & Pfeifer, M. (2009). Reading competencies of fourth-grade students: Comparing print and hypertext literacies. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 7(4), 62–65.
66. Weinberger, D. (2008). The morality of links. In J. Turow & L. Tsui (Eds.), The hyperlinked society (pp. 181–191). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
67. Williams, A. P., Trammell, K. D., Postelnicu, M., Landreville, K. D., & Martin, J. D. (2005). Blogging and Hyperlinking: Use of the Web to enhance viability during 2004 US campaign. Journalism Studies, 6(2), 177–186.