It might be an interesting development of the study to test the comprehension of engineering and then science students on the same passages.
But, you can only gain that by having a broad interest and reading a lot in the first place. Call me grandpa but over the past 100 years or so of radio, TV, then internet, people have been reading less and less, so naturally reading comprehension has gone down too.
Flip it around and have an avid reader watch a modern gaming video and you'd see similar poor comprehension I suspect.
I am doubtful that this is about people not reading as hard and often. Alternate hypothesis: the problem is that people are not thinking as hard and often.
According to the authors I’d be “functionally illiterate.”
> the problem is that people are not thinking as hard and often.
Modern language as understood by modern readers doesn’t require you to think as hard, and that’s a good thing. We shouldn’t strive to make language intentionally difficult just so we can feel smug and call those who don’t waste their time on it “illiterate.” Dickens’ prose is a sort of poetry and is more about creating a mental picture. The definition of “michaelmas term” and “lord chancellor” don’t seem like important parts of that paragraph at all. The important thing of the paragraph is for you to read it and get a picture in your minds eye about how dreary and muddy London was then. That’s all. Giving this to readers and saying “If you don’t choose to look up the word michaelmas, you are functionally illiterate” just shows that the authors need to look up what a fucking “study” is supposed to accomplish. Hint: it’s not about stoking the author’s ego.