Communication Science
Introduction
Effects of binge-watching: does binge-watching frequency affect students’ interest in the course material?
This paper will discuss the effects of binge-watching, particularly those on students’ interest in course material, including the effect of the genre being most binge-watched.
The emerging trend of binge-watching through the rapidly increasing video-on-demand (VOD) services has become a hot topic for communication scientists in recent years, as it is a relatively new, debated phenomenon. Binge-watching tends to become the new dominant media-content consuming pattern (Flayelle et al., 2020; Granow et al., 2018). Similarly to other technology-related societal trends – like playing video games, watching violent or inappropriate movies, etc. –, binge-watching also has consequences to students and their study related activities, that raises concerns (Rubenking and Bracken, 2018). Therefore, this study is socially relevant, particularly for the students within society, and this paper will address a social problem. In addition, the study is also important to build a theoretical understanding of this problem, further developing the scientific knowledge in this field and informing those in education. Research has shown that binge-watching can become an addiction, seriously affecting people’s everyday lives both, mentally and practically (Starosta and Izydorczyk, 2020). This is particularly important and problematic for those who are still in their developing, learning stage of life: students (Vaterlaus et al., 2019). Therefore, the research question of this paper is:
RQ1: Does binge-watching frequency affect students’ interest in the course material?
The research will focus on the (1) direct effect of the frequency of binge-watching on students’ interest in their course material, and (2) the direct effect of the genre that is being binge-watched the most. The former is academically and socially relevant, based on the existing literature of other fields on the positive effect of video-watching on students’ interest in their course material, but not regarding binge-watching (Rowland et al., 2019). Here, ‘interest in course material’ stands for students’ objective judgement on their own interest in the study material (including lectures, seminars, readings, videos, homework, presentations, and other course-related material they receive in any format) of their courses, regardless their level of education (e.g., secondary or university) (Rowland et al., 2019).
H1: The more frequently a student is binge-watching, the more interested they will be in the course material.
The importance of genre in relation to binge-watching and its effects is also supported through the universality of existing studies (Oberschmidt, 2017; Kissell, 2021). Yet, there is a lack of focus on genre in relation to students’ interest in their course material, therefore this paper will contribute by filling this gap, based on the hypothesis below. Down-to-earth genres with content that is closer to course materials are expected to increase students’ interest (Alfian and Herdjiono, 2019). The items used for categorising genre will be defined in accordance with the most popular VODs (Disney+’s and Netflix’s) genres and Oberschmidt’s (2017, p. 17) categorisation (see in Methods).
Analysing these hypotheses through a cross-sectional survey design, targeting students, this research will contribute to the academic understa
nding of binge-watching’s effect on students’ interest in their course material, and also, on the relevance of genre in this relationship. Revealing the (1) effects of binge-watching frequency and (2) whether the binge-watching of certain genre is actually beneficial for students’ interest in their course material – and consequently, to their developing/learning progress – might contribute to the development of education and teaching methods. New technologies are often perceived negatively, but it is important to explore the positive potentials of emerging tools and trends.
Methods
The research question and hypotheses discussed in this paper are part of a larger study conducted by a group of students at the University of Amsterdam, in which several other aspects, motivators and consequences of binge-watching were addressed. In this paper, only the data relevant for the RQ1, H1 and H2 mentioned above are analysed and discussed.
Participants
To test the hypotheses mentioned above, the cross-sectional survey has been conducted in the form of an online questionnaire only. The target audience of the survey was not limited beyond the ethical criteria of age (at least 18), but for some research papers – including this one – students have been filtered, due to the focus on ‘interest in course material’, that is linked to being a student. Other characteristics such as age, sex, nationality, highest completed education and employment status have also been defined. The sampling method was a convenience ‘snowball’ sampling – as random sampling for an optimally diverse population was not possible within the limited time – that negatively affects both, the validity and reliability of the study. However, this method of sampling has led to a high turnout within the limited time-period, and helped us to cover a culturally, ethnically and demographically diverse population. This was also due to the researcher group – who were in their ‘student age’, with many student acquaintances – spreading the survey consisted of various nationalities. It is also worth to note that respondents were not offered any incentives to motivate their participation.
A total of eight participants have been removed from the dataset (four of them due to drop-out, four of them due to being underage). Upon filtering students from the total respondents (245), the final sample consisted of 129 participants (N=129), with a majority of female respondents (65.9%) compared to males (31.8%), non-binary (0.8%) and those who did not want to say (1.6%). The mean age of the respondents was 23.92 (SD=2.88) years. The sample had a significant cultural distribution, representing at least 24 countries. The most represented nationalities were, Chinese (45%), Spanish (16.3%), Dutch (9.3%), Italian (9.3%), while 76% of those selecting ‘other’ did not specify their nationality. Concerning educational background, most participants have obtained bachelor’s degree (57.4%), or master’s degree (27.1%). The majority of respondents were employed in full-time (41.6%) or completely unemployed (40.4%).
Procedure
This study has been conducted in the form of a cross-sectional survey, through a self-completion online questionnaire, consisting mostly of closed-ended questions with pre-given answer scales. This paper focuses on the data and variables subtracted from a larger survey. All answer scales are seven-point Likert scales. The method of online self-completion questionnaire was the choice of the research group due to the limited time and the effective and rapid reach that is possible through this method. Besides, the assumed associations can be tested through this method without respondent bias. The median for completing the survey was 14.83 minutes, the mode was 2.8 minutes and the language used was English. The data was collected from the 11th to the 15th of June 2021. The survey has been created in Qualtrics and the access-link has been spread online, – in line with the convenience ‘snowball’ sampling. Potential participants were asked to join the survey by the researchers, via various social media platforms and direct messages. This non-random sample is not representative as the majority of respondents include the friends, family and acquaintances of the group of researchers (Binge-watching group 1 of the 2021 spring semester Research Practice Seminar at the University of Amsterdam).
Measures
Interest in course material.
To measure students’ interest in course material, a seven-point Likert-scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with a middle answer option) was applied. The question ‘How strongly do you agree with these statements about your interest in your course materials?’ has been answered through two items:
1: I am very much interested in the course material. (Laprise and Winrich, 2010)
2: I feel interested in devoting my time and effort into studying and learning my course material. (Rowland et. al. 2019)
The survey questions above have been adopted from the mentioned studies and have been shaped to fit this study on binge-watching specifically.
The reliability analysis of the two items on interest in course material (of students) showed an excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .94 (M=10.02, SD=3.32). This means that the scale is reliable.
Genre.
The measurement of ‘genre’ in the survey has consisted of seven items, each with a seven-point Likert-scale (never to always) under the question of ‘For each genre, please indicate how often you watch multiple episodes of shows in that genre.’ The number of genres is indefinite, as new genres are emerging daily in the filming industry, while also their categories become blurred. Therefore, to draw a limit on the number of survey questions seven items of genre have been generated based on genres offered by Disney+’s and Netflix’s genres search tools (in the Netherlands), in combination with Oberschmidt’s (2017, p. 17) categorisation has been used, due to Disney+ and Netflix being almost equally the most popular VODs (Kissell, 2021). Based on this, the genre measurement items used can be seen in the Appendix’s ‘Items for measurements’ section.
Due to the self-completion questionnaire, examples for each genre have been added for clarity. Also, Oberschmidt’s (2017) original category of ‘Biography, Documentary, News and Talk-show’ has been reformulated into ‘Game-show, Reality-TV’ and ‘Docuseries’ in agreement, due to one of our researchers’ explicit focus on docuseries. In addition, to limit the number of survey questions, we have combined the original categories of ‘Action, Adventure, Western’ with ‘Fantasy, Mystery’, and removed the categories of ‘Music, Musical’, ‘Short’, and ‘Sport’. The measure of genre has been used for indicating the most commonly binge-watched genre of participants, to see whether it has an effect on their interest in course material. This will become clear through comparing the levels of interest in course material of student groups by genre-preferences. Genres was then post hoc recoded into ‘down to earth’ and ‘non-down to earth’ bivariates, in order to test H2. Here, ‘Game-show, Reality-TV’ and ‘Docuseries’ will belong to ‘down to earth’, while the rest of genres will belong to ‘non-down to earth’. This categorisation will be due to the expectation of ‘down to earth’ genres – which are naturally more related to school/university subjects and therefore, their course material – will have a positive effect (Alfian and Herdjiono, 2019).
The reliability analysis of genre (original 7 items) showed poor internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .58 (M=22.20, SD=6.42). Therefore, the scale is not very reliable and needs to be applied with caution.
Binge-watching.
Binge-watching has been measured with a pre-existing question of Rubenking and Bracken (2018), measuring frequency of binge-watching behaviour. This measurement was suitable, as it tests the relevant aspect of binge-watching behaviour for this paper, in a precise and well-interpretable manner. The survey section was introduced by ‘Binge-watching is defined as: "watching two or more episodes in one sitting.”’ (Rubenking & Bracken, 2018) Then, the question was ‘Based on this, how often do you binge-watch?’ The answer scale used has been slightly modified from the original one formulated by Rubenking & Bracken (2018) and consisted of the following choices: ‘never; less than once a month; 1-3 times a month; 1-2 times a week; 3-4 times a week; 5-6 times a week; every day.’ This measurement is reasonable and suitable for this research, as the paper – and the research sub-group – is interested in the frequency of binge-watching only, not its length in terms of time or number of episodes.
Student.
Due to the focus of our research question on course material, only student participants are relevant for our hypotheses and data. Therefore, a filtering question has been applied.
The single item filtering question with bivariate (yes – no) answer options was:
‘Are you a student?’
This generated question was reasonable, due to the focus of the research on interest in course material, whereby being a student is a pre-condition to have courses and course material.
During the data analysis, only those respondents have been used who answered ‘yes’ to this question, by filtering through the variable student_status.
Age.
Among other ethnographic indicators (moderators), respondents have been asked the question of ‘how old are you?’, with an open answer option, through one item. For students, M=23.92, SD=2.88. The lowest occurring value for student age was 18, the highest was 36.
Gender.
‘What is your gender?’ has also been posed to participants through one item, with four answer options: male, female, non-binary, do not want to say. The most frequently occurring value was female (n=85), in contrast to male (n=41), non-binary (n=1) and do not wat to say (n=2). The gender variable has been recoded into a dummy variable (0=male, 1=female), whereby non-binary and ‘do not want to say’ have been defined missing, due to low turnout.
Highest completed education.
The question of ‘what is the highest educational level you have obtained?’ has been measuring the highest level of completed education of participants through one item. Six pre-given answer options (from no schooling completed to PhD) were given. For students, M=4.16, SD=.67, (whereby 4=bachelor’s- and 5=master’s degree). Among students, the frequency was the highest for bachelor’s- (n=74), and master’s degree (n=35).
Results
Four people were removed from the dataset completely, due to their drop-out at the entry, and other four due to them being underage, besides the instructions for participants to be at least at the age of 18 for participating in the survey. Besides, students (those answering ‘yes’ to the question of ‘Are you a student?’) have been filtered, due to the research group’s specific focus on students’ interest in course material. Upon recoding gender and due to missing values in ‘interest in course material’ and ‘binge-watching frequency, we have been left with a total number of 129 student participants.
H1 stated that an increase in binge-watching frequency leads to an increase in students’ interest in their course material. A multiple regression analysis has been conducted to test H1. Here ‘interest in course material’ is the dependent-, ‘binge-watching frequency’ is the independent- and ‘age’, ‘gender’ and ‘highest completed education’ are the control variables. Multiple regression has been an adequate choice as the researchers were looking for an asymmetric association between interest in course material and the frequency of binge-watching (two continuous variables), while controlling for (dummy and continuous) demographic predictors.
The multiple regression analysis predicting students’ interest in course material from binge-watching frequency (while controlling for age, gender and education) is statistically significant, F(4, 118) = 2.47, p= .049. The model thus significantly predicts interest in course material from binge-watching frequency in the student population. The independent variables predicted 5% of the variance in interest in course material in the student population (adj. R2= .05), that is not substantial. Binge-watching frequency (b= -.46, b*= -.21, t= -2.33, p= .021, 95% CI [-.86, -.07]) has significant effect on interest in course material for students. However, age (b= -.20, b*= .17, t= -1.78, p= .078, 95% CI [-.02, .42]), gender (b= -.58, b*= -.08, t= -.92, p= .36, 95% CI [-1.83, .67]) and the highest level of completed education (b= -.00, b*= .00, t= .01, p= .990, 95% CI [-.94, .96]) do not seem to have a significant effect on binge-watching frequency. Although, H1 is not supported, as binge-watching frequency not increases but decreases students’ interest in their course material. Yet, this effect of binge-watching frequency on students’ interest in course material is significant.
H2 stated that the above-mentioned relationship is affected by the genre that is being binge-watched. More specifically, it is expected students who binge-watch more ‘down-to-earth’ are more interested in their course material.A multiple regression analysis was conducted to test H2. Similarly to the case of H1, multiple regression has been an adequate selection as I was again interested in an asymmetric association, only this time between interest in course material and the extent of binge-watching down-to-earth genre.
The multiple regression analysis predicting students’ interest in course material from binge-watching frequency, genre, gender, age and education is statistically significant, F(6, 116) = 3.30, p= .005, so the model’s predictions are valid. The independent variables predicted 10% of the variance in interest in course material (adj. R2= .102). Down-to-earth genre (b=-.49, b*=- .22, t= -2.25, p= .026, 95% CI [-.92, -.06]) has significant, although negative effect on interest in course material. Age (b=.24, b*= .21, t= 2.19, p= .030, 95% CI [.02, .45]) has also become a statistically significant predictor. On the other hand, with genre in the model, gender (b=-1.09, b*= -.15, t= -1.70, p= .094, 95% CI [-2.37, .19]) and education remain insignificant, while binge-watching frequency (b=-.40, b*= -.18, t= -1.95, p= .053, 95% CI [-.82, -.01]) has also become non-significant in predicting students’ interest in course material. Here, similarly to H1, H2 is not supported as down-to-earth genre has the opposite effect on students’ interest in course material: it decreases rather than increase interest. Yet, the relationship between the two is significant, so the study is relevant. Also, it is worth to note that non-down-to-earth genre (b=-.74, b*= .30, t= 2.47, p= .015, 95% CI [.15, 1.33]) does have H2’s expected positive effect on interest in course material.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the main effects of binge-watching. It was found that, for students, more binge-watching leads to less interest in their course material, while watching more down-to-earth genres also decreases interest in course material. Although, these findings are the opposite as what was expected by H1 and H2, they are still
consistent with previous research. H1 corresponds with the findings of Yazzie-Mintz (2007, p. 5-6): students who did not like school (73%) watched television for 2 or more hours a week (70%). Consequently, binge-watching decreases students’ interest in course material.
H2 confirmed the relationship between the genre that is being binge-watched and students’ interest in their course material. Even though the hypothesis has been the opposite, the findings resonate those of Starosta and Izydorczyk (2020) about pre-sleep arousal’s effect on sleep quality, based on which we can expect arousal non-down-to-earth genres to increase excitement and therefore, interest. However, surprisingly the results of both hypotheses-testing showed that gender and education do not moderate interest in course material based on binge-watching frequency. Age is only a significant predictor of interest in course material when genre is involved in the model, while binge-watching frequency is outruled by genre and is not a predictor of interest.
The relevance of these findings is that both hypotheses showed some significant interaction with students’ interest in course material, which knowledge can be used in education. In addition, the results and measures can be applied for future research on the topic. A theoretical implication may be that due to the limited space in the survey, both genre and interest in course material have been measured through less items than originally intended. Future research – with revers hypotheses – could focus specifically on this aspect of binge-watching where more space is available for these questions.
As a limitation of this study, it is important to note that the sample has not been random, therefore it is not representative of the whole (student) population. The convenience sample distributed by higher educational researchers led to a highly educated, fairly young sample. In addition, the poor reliability of genre’s measurement items is a limit to the reliability of this study and needs further development. Also, the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on binge-watching trends and behaviour are well-known and needs to be recognised here as well. Last but not least, as the survey has only been available in English language, language may have been a barrier in answering correctly for some participants.
Future research should be conducted in due course with a representative random sample after the pandemic and with a survey that is solely focused on these hypotheses to allow more room for items of the different variables, to gain more precise data – and potentially, a more reliable measurement of genre.
References
Alfian, A., & Herdjiono, M. V. I. (2019). The Application of Documentary Film in Improving Student Interest: An Alternative for Environmental Education. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 343(1), 1-4.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/343/1/012156
Flayelle, M., Maurage, P., Di Lorenzo, K. R., Vögele, C., Gainsbury, S. M., & Billieux, J. (2020). Binge-watching: What Do We Know So Far? A First Systematic Review of the Evidence. Current Addiction Reports, 7(1), 44-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-020-00299-8
Granow, V. C., Reinecke, L., & Ziegele, M. (2018). Binge-watching and Psychological Well-Being: Media Use Between Lack of Control and Perceived Autonomy. Communication Research Reports, 35(5), 392-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1525347
Kissell, C. (2021). The 10 most popular streaming TV services. Money Talks News. Retrieved from https://www.moneytalksnews.com/the-10-most-popular-streaming-tv-services-of-2020/
Laprise, S., & Winrich, C. (2010). The Impact of Science Fiction Films on Student Interest in Science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(2), 45. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A240864479/AONE?u=amst&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=152fa2a1
Oberschmidt, K. (2017). The relationship between binge-watching, compensatory health beliefs, and sleep (Bachelor thesis). Retrieved from https://essay.utwente.nl/72663/
Rowland, A. A., Knekta, E., Eddy, S., & Corwin, L. A. (2019). Defining and Measuring Students’ Interest in Biology: An Analysis of the Biology Education Literature. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3) ar34. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-02-0037
Rubenking, B., & Bracken, C. C. (2018). Binge-watching: A Suspenseful, Emotional, Habit. Communication Research Reports, 35(5), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1525346
Starosta, J. A., & Izydorczyk, B. (2020). Understanding the Phenomenon of Binge
Watching—A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 4469. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124469
Vaterlaus, J. M., Spruance, L. A., Frantz, K., & Kruger, J. S. (2019). College student television binge-watching: Conceptualization, gratifications, and perceived consequences. Social Science Journal, 56(4), 470-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.10.004
Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: a report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement (report). Retrieved from Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University website: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED495758
Appendix A
Items for the measurements
Interest in course material
How strongly do you agree with these statements about your interest in your course materials?
→ Q1: I am very much interested in the course material. (coursematerial_1 → coursematerial_1_rec → int_coursematerial_TOTAL)
→ Q2: I feel interested in devoting my time and effort into studying and learning my course material. (Rowland et. al. 2019) (coursematerial_2 → coursematerial_2_rec → int_coursematerial_TOTAL)
Answer scale: strongly disagree to strongly agree (seven-point Likert-scale)
Genre
The next questions are about binge-watching.
Binge-watching is defined as: "watching two or more episodes in one sitting."
For each genre, please indicate how often you watch multiple episodes of shows in that genre.
→ Q1: Docuseries (e.g., Year Million, Alien World, Roma Empire, Our Planet, Explained) (genre_docuseries → genre_docu_rec) | (‘down to earth’) |
→ Q2: Animation/Anime (e.g., The Simpsons, Rick & Morty, Bojack Horseman, Avatar, Naruto) (genre_anime → genre_anime_rec) | (‘non-down to earth’) |
→ Q3: Comedy/Sitcom (e.g., Friends, Modern Family, Workaholics, The Office, HYMM) (genre_comedy → genre_comedy_rec) | (‘non-down to earth’) |
→ Q4: Game-show, Reality-TV (e.g., Are you the One?, The Circle, Love Island, Nailed It, Next in Fashion) (genre_reality → genre_reality_rec) | (‘down to earth’) |
→ Q5: Action, Adventure, Western, Fantasy, Mystery (e.g., The Flash, Marvel, Westworld, The Walking Dead, Cobra Kai) (genre_action → genre_action_rec) | (‘non-down to earth’) |
→ Q6: News, Talk-show (e.g., Last Week Tonight, Oprah, Ellen, Wendy, The Late Late Show) | (‘down to earth’) |
→ Q7: Drama/Romance (e.g., Grey’s Anatomy, The Queen’s Gambit, Big Little Lies, Handmaid’s Tale, Shameless) (genre_drama → genre_drama_rec) | (‘non-down to earth’) |
→ Q8: Crime, Thriller, Horror (e.g., Sherlock, Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal minds, Mare of Easttown, American Horror Story) (genre_crime → genre_crime_rec) | (‘non-down to earth’) |
Answer scale: never – rarely – occasionally – about half the time – often – almost always – always
Binge-watching
The next questions are about binge-watching.
Binge-watching is defined as: "watching two or more episodes in one sitting."
→ Q1: Based on this definition, how often do you binge-watch? (bingewatching_frequency → bingewatching_frequency_rec)
Answer scale: never – less than once a month – 1-3 times a month – 1-2 times a week – 3-4 times a week – 5-6 times a week – every day
Student
→ Q1: Are you a student? (student_status → student_status_dummy)
Answer options:
– Yes
– No
Age
→ Q1: How old are you? (age – remove drop-outs and underage)
Answer scale:
– No pre-given answer-options
Gender
→ Q1: What is your gender? (gender → gender_dummy)
Answer scale:
– Male
– Female
– Non-binary
– Do not want to say
Nationality
→ Q1: Please indicate your nationality: (nationality)
– American
– Indian
– Dutch
– Egyptian
– Taiwanese
– British
– Indonesian
– Chinese
– German
– Puerto Rican
– Hungarian
– Greek
– Italian
– Other (specifiable in box)
Level of highest completed education
→ Q1: What is the highest educational level that you have obtained? (education)
Answer options:
– No schooling completed
– Primary / elementary school
– Secondary school / high school
– Bachelor's degree
– Master's degree
– PhD
Comments
Post a Comment