Investigation of Secondary School Students' Metaphorical Perceptions of the Concept of Screen Reading

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine and examine middle school students' metaphorical perceptions regarding the concept of reading from screens. In line with this objective, the research seeks to answer the question: “What are middle school students’ metaphorical perceptions of reading from screens?” The study employed a qualitative research method using the phenomenological design. The study group consisted of 267 middle school students. Students were asked to create metaphorical meanings related to reading from screens. These metaphors were collected through metaphor identification forms prepared by the researchers. The data were analyzed using content analysis. The metaphors were examined in five stages: (1) Elimination stage, (2) Coding and metaphor identification stage, (3) Category identification stage, (4) Transferring data to digital format and analysis, (5) Validity and reliability. According to the three main categories identified, a total of 205 types of metaphors were determined. The most frequently expressed metaphors by students were: Earth, human, space, stars, encyclopedia, mountain, glasses, sliding down a slide, Sun, game, rain, amusement park, car, bee, Earth’s rotation, meteor, rocket, wind, water, trampoline, landslide, and airplane. Additionally, it was found that there was no significant relationship between the students’ grade levels or gender and the distribution of metaphors across the main categories. Regarding students’ reading preferences, more than half of the participants preferred reading from screens. In the metaphors created by students, aspects such as entertainment, appeal, rich content, offering different usage opportunities, fast screen use, and elements of light and color were highlighted.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Reading from screen
• Metaphor
• Printed material
• Reading preferences

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Ekrandan Okuma Kavramına Yönelik Metaforik Algılarının İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ortaokul öğrencilerinin ekrandan okuma kavramına yönelik metaforik algılarını belirlemek ve bu metaforları incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda “Ortaokul öğrencilerinin ekrandan okumaya ilişkin metaforik algıları nelerdir?” sorusuna yanıt aranmıştır. Araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden olgubilim (fenomenoloji) deseni kullanılmıştır. Çalışma grubunu 267 ortaokul öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Öğrencilerden ekrandan okumaya ilişkin metaforik anlamlandırmalar oluşturmaları istenmiştir. Veriler, araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan metafor belirleme formları aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Verilerin çözümlenmesinde içerik analizi tekniği kullanılmıştır. Metaforlar beş aşamada çözümlenmiştir: (1) Ayıklama aşaması, (2) Kodlama ve metafor belirleme aşaması, (3) Ulam belirleme aşaması, (4) Verilerin bilgisayar ortamına aktarılması ve çözümlenmesi, (5) Geçerlik ve güvenirlik. Belirlenen üç ana ulama göre toplam 205 metafor çeşidi tespit edilmiştir. Öğrencilerin en çok ifade ettiği metaforlar dünya, insan, uzay, yıldızlar, ansiklopedi, dağ, gözlük, kaydıraktan kaymak, güneş, oyun, yağmur, lunapark, araba, arı, dünyanın dönmesi, meteor, roket, rüzgâr, su, trambolin, toprak kayması, uçak imgeleridir. Ayrıca öğrencilerin sınıf düzeyleri ve cinsiyetleri ile metaforların ana ulamlara dağılımı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığı saptanmıştır. Öğrencilerin okuma tercihlerine bakıldığında ise katılımcıların yarısından fazlasının ekrandan okumayı tercih ettiği görülmüştür. Öğrencilerin oluşturdukları metaforlarda; eğlence, beğeni, zengin içerik sunma, farklı kullanım imkânları sağlama, hızlı ekran kullanımı, ışık ve renk unsurları gibi noktalara dikkat çektikleri görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekrandan okuma
• Metafor
• Basılı materyal
• Okuma tercihleri

Kaynakça

1. Alshaali, S. & Varshney, U. (2005). On the usability of mobile commerce. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 3(1), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2005.005872
2. Andriessen, D. & Gubbins, C. (2009). Metaphor analysis as an approach for exploring theoretical concepts: The case of social capital. Organization Studies, 30(8), 845–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609334952
3. Baker, R. (2005). The effects of multiple column online text on reading speed, reading comprehension, and satisfaction. (Doktora Tezi). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3189236)
4. Barreto, N. G. (2006). The electronic text and a new nature of literacy. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal(8), 203-215. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.10512
5. Ben-Peretz, M., Mendelson, N., & Kron, F. W. (2003). How teachers in different educational context view their roles. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 277-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00100-2
6. Blatner, A. (2000). Foundations of psychodrama. Springer.
7. Burke, A. & Rowsell, J. (2008). Screen pedagogy: Challenging perceptions of digital reading practice. Changing English, 15(4), 445-456. https://doi.org/10.1080/13586840802493092
8. Burnett, C. (2009). Research into literacy and technology in primary classrooms: An exploration of understandings generated by recent studies. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01379.x

9. Cardoso, G. R., Ganito, C., & Ferreira, C. (2012). Digital reading: The transformation of reading practices. ELPUB 2012 – The 16th International Conference on Electronic Publishing’de sunulmuş bildiri, 14-15 Haziran, Guimaraes, Portugal. https://ciencia.ucp.pt/ws/portalfiles/portal/ 29658662/Carla_Ganito_112_elpub2012.content.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
10. Carlson, T. B. (2001). Using metaphors to enhance reflectiveness among preservice teachers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(1), 49-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2001.10605820
11. Chou, I. C. (2014). Investigating EFL students' e-Book reading attitudes in first and second language. US-China Foreign Language, 12(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8080/2014.01.007
12. Clarken, R. H. (1997). Five metaphors for educators. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association’da sunulmuş bildiri, 24-28 Mart, Chicago, USA. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=7a3f1ea8078c9c7d05382f935e46712c5a00532c sayfasından erişilmiştir.
13. Cleave, E., Arku, G., & Chatwin, M. (2017). Cities’ economic development efforts in a changing global economy: Content analysis of economic development plans in Ontario, Canada. Area, 49(3), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12335
14. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
15. Cropley, A. (2002). Qualitative research methods: An introduction for students of psychology and education. Zinatne.
16. Dağtaş, A. (2013). Ekrandan okumanın okumaya ve Türkçe dersine yönelik tutuma etkisi. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). http://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
17. Dwirahayu, G., Handayani, I. D., Suhyanto, O., Musyrifah, E., & Sobiruddin, D. (2022). Development of mathematics teaching-learning material with metaphors approach. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2157(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2157/1/012045
18. Edmonds, W. A. & Kennedy, T. D. (2017). An applied guide to research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method. Sage.
19. Elkatmış, M., Tanık, M., & Elkatmış, R. (2021). Türkiye ve Hollanda’daki üniversite öğrencilerinin e-kitap okuma alışkanlıklarına karşılaştırmalı bir bakış. International Journal of Language Academy, 9(1), 298-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ijla.49579
20. Fox, S. & Madden, M. (2005). Generations online. Pew Internet and American Life Project.
21. Gill, M. J. (2014). The possibilities of phenomenology for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 118-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113518348
22. Güneş, F. (2010). Öğrencilerde ekran okuma ve ekranik düşünme. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(14), 1-20. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mkusbed/issue/19556/208637 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
23. Halme, O. (2011). E-reading devices as a new medium for newspaper reading. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 123456789/647)
24. Hargittai, E. & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults' use of the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602-621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321782
25. Hashim, N. L., Matraf, M. S. B., & Hussain, A. (2021). Identifying the requirements of visually impaired users for accessible mobile e-book applications. JOIV: International Journal on Informatics Visualization, 5(2), 99-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.30630/joiv.5.2.398
26. Höffe, O. (2015). Platon: Politeia. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
27. Huang, H. & Li, Y. (2022). Metaphorical description and model description of complex systems. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2022(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3094010
28. İleri, Z. (2011). Ekrandan okumanın ilköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama ve okuma motivasyonu düzeylerine etkisi. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). http://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
29. Jabr, F. (2013, Nisan 11). The reading brain in the digital age: The science of paper versus screens. Scientific American. www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/ sayfasından erişilmiştir.
30. Kerr, M. A. (2002). Reading from computer screens vs. reading from paper: Effects on children’s information retention and comprehension. (Doktora Tezi). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. MQ72684)
31. Khan, M. & Raza, M. (2012). Suitable lenght of text on the bases of eye blink for reducing maximum focus loses. International Journal of Computer Applications, 37(8), 15-21. https://doi.org/10.5120/4628-6653
32. Köpper, M., Mayr, S., & Buchner, A. (2016). Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: Does it still make a difference? Ergonomics, 59(5), 615-632. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1100757
33. Kucirkova, N. (2019). Socio-material directions for developing empirical research on children’s e-reading: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of the literature across disciplines. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 21(1), 148–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798418824364
34. Kurniawan, S. H. & Zaphiris, P. (2001). Reading online or on paper: Which is faster? 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction’da sunulmuş bildiri, 5-10 Ağustos, New Orleans, LA. https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~srikur/files/HCII_reading.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
35. Kymes, A. D. (2007). Investigation and analysis of online reading strategies. (Doktora Tezi). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3259594)
36. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago.
37. Leu, D. J. (2006). New literacies, reading research, and the challenges of change: A deictic perspective. J. Hoffman, D. Schallert, M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, & B. Malloch (Ed.), 55th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference içinde (s. 1-20). National Reading Conference. https://www.academia.edu/18113036/New_literacies_reading_research_and_the_challenges_of_change_A_deictic_perspective sayfasından erişilmiştir.
38. Levy, R. (2009). ‘You have to understand words… but not read them’: Young children becoming readers in a digital age. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01382.x
39. Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behaviour in the digital environments. Changes over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700-712. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510632040
40. Loomis, A., Davis, A., Cruden, G., Padilla, C., & Drazen, Y. (2021). Early childhood suspension and expulsion: A content analysis of state legislation. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(2), 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01159-4
41. Lyman-Hager, M. A. (2000). Bridging the language-literature gap: Introducing literature electronically to the undergraduate language student. CALICO Journal, 17, 431-451. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v17i3.431-452
42. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Sage.
43. MEB. (2024). T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı 2024-2028 Stratejik Planı. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/yayinlarimiz/yayin/112 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
44. Melchior, M. (2001). Perceptually guided scrolling for reading continuous text on small screen devices. Third International Workshop on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices’da sunulmuş bildiri, 10-14 Eylül, Lille, France. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228697192_ Perceptually_guided_scrolling_for_reading_continuous_text_on_small_screen_devices sayfasından erişilmiştir.
45. Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
46. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
47. Miller, S. I. (1987). Some comments on the utility of metaphors for educational theory and practice. Educational Theory, 37(3), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1987.00219.x
48. Miller, S. I. (2003). Analysis of phenomenological data generated with children as research participants. Nurse Research, 10(4), 68-82. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2003.07.10.4.68.c5908.
49. Nichols, M. (2016). Reading and studying on the screen: An overview of literature towards good learning design practice. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 20(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.61468/jofdl.v20i1.263
50. Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory‐guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21026
51. Niskier, S. R., Snaychuk, L. A., Kim, H. S., da Silva, T. T., de Souza Vitalle, M. S., & Tavares, H. (2024). Adolescent screen use: Problematic internet use and the impact of gender. Psychiatry Investigation, 21(1), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2023.0178
52. Noyes, J. M. & Garland, K. J. (2003). VDT versus paper-based text: reply to Mayes, Sims and Koonce. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31(6), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(03)00027-1
53. Noyes, J. M. & Garland, K. J. (2008). Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics, 51(9), 1352-1375. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130802170387
54. O'Donnell, E. K. (2015). Using technology and multimodal literacy to actively engage struggling and disengaged readers. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 20.500.12648/5813)
55. Okazaki, S. & Rivas, J. A. (2002). A content analysis of multinationals’ Web communication strategies: Cross‐cultural research framework and pre‐testing. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 12(5), 380‐390. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240210447137
56. Özevin, B. & Kaya, A. (2020). Prospective preschool teachers’ metaphors about the concept of teacher. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(3), 691-707. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.653091
57. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
58. Piñeiro-Naval, V. (2020). The content analysis methodology. Uses and applications in communication research on Spanish-speaking countries. Communication & Society, 33(3), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.33.3.1-15
59. Pragasam, J. A. & Sulaiman, N. A. (2023). Integrating technology in ESL reading classroom: Accounting pupils’ perspectives. Arab World English Journal(1), 324-342. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/comm1.23
60. Railean, E. A. (2017). Impacts of digital revolution on learning. E. A. Railean (Ed.), User interface design of digital textbooks içinde (s. 1-22). Springer.
61. Refaie, E. (2003). Understanding visual metaphor: The example of newspaper cartoon. Visual Communication, 2(1), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357203002001755
62. Rose, E. (2011). The phenomenology of on-screen reading: University students’ lived experience of digitized text. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 515-526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01043.x
63. Saban, A. (2004). Giriş düzeyindeki sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının ‘öğretmen’ kavramına ilişkin ileri sürdükleri metaforlar. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 131-155. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tebd/issue/26128/275216 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
64. Salmerón, L., Vargas, C., Delgado, P., & Baron, N. (2022). Relation between digital tool practices in the language arts classroom and reading comprehension scores. Reading and Writing, 36(1), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10295-1
65. Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting qualitative data. Sage.
66. Sönmez, S. & İlgün, G. (2018). Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin sağlık hizmetleri bağlamında incelenmesi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21(40), 375-400. https://doi.org/10.31795/baunsobed.492455
67. Srivastava, N., Jain, R., Healey, J., Bylinskii, Z., & Dingler, T. (2021). Mitigating the effects of reading interruptions by providing reviews and previews. Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 229, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451610
68. Stoop, J., Kreutzer, P., & Kircz, J. G. (2013). Reading and learning from screens versus print: a study in changing habits: Part 2–comparing different text structures on paper and on screen. New Library World, 114(9/10), 371-383. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-04-2013-0034
69. Tannehill, D. & MacPhail, A. (2014). What examining teaching metaphors tells us about pre-service teachers' developing beliefs about teaching and learning. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(2), 149-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.732056
70. Uluyol, Ç. & Eryılmaz, S. (2015). 21. yüzyıl becerileri işığında FATİH projesi değerlendirmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2), 209-229. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gefad/issue/6772/91207 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
71. Vanderschantz, N., Timpany, C., Whitehead, D., & Carss, W. (2010). A small scale study into the effect that text & background colour has on processing and self-correction rates for childrens‟ on-screen reading. International Journal of the Book, 7(4), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9516/CGP/v07i04/36841
72. Wallace, S. (2001). Guardian angels and teachers from hell: Using metaphor as a measure of schools’ experiences and expectations of general national vocational qualifications. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(6), 727-739. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110078404
73. Wimmer, D. D. & Dominick, J. R. (2000). Mass media research: An indroduction. Wadsworth.
74. Yee, S. P. (2017). Students’ and teachers’ conceptual metaphors for mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 117(3-4), 146-157. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12217
75. Yi, W., Park, E., & Cho, K. (2011). E-Book readability, comprehensibility and satisfaction. 5th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (ICUIMC ‘11), 38, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1145/1968613.196866
76. Ylinen, S., Smolander, A.-R., Karhila, R., Kakouros, S., Lipsanen, J., Huotilainen, M., & Kurimo, M. (2021). The effects of a digital articulatory game on the ability to perceive speech-sound contrasts in another language. Frontiers in Education, 6, 612457. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.612457
77. Zinken, J. (2007). Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual analogies. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.024