Cover not available
Article published In:
Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 19:2 (2016) ► pp.131–156

Strategy training and mind-mapping facilitates children’s hypertext comprehension

 | Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University
 | Instructional Technology, University of Twente
Children in primary school read hypertext for comprehension. However, children typically are taught reading strategies for linear text, while these strategies are not automatically transferrable one-to-one to hypertext. In the present study, a training group of 55 sixth-graders were taught four hypertext reading strategies (planning, monitoring, evaluation and elaboration) via mind mapping and the usage of a prompting paper-card. A control group of 29 children received no strategy training. We examined to what extent strategy training influenced children’s strategy use and learning outcomes: (1) number of pages read and reading time per text, (2) literal / inferential reading comprehension scores and (3) knowledge representations (relatedness judgment task and mind maps). At posttest, the training group showed higher scores on a self-reported strategy usage questionnaire, and higher comprehension scores as compared to the control group. Hypertext strategy training in combination with mind-mapping supports children’s hypertext comprehension.
Keywords: learning strategies, elementary education, reading comprehension, pedagogical issues, hypertext
Published online: 1 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.19.2.01fes
References (62)
Acton, W. H., Johnson, P. J., & Goldsmith, T. E. (1994). Structural knowledge assessment: Comparison of referent structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 303–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akyel, A., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learners of English. System, 371, 136–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amadieu, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2010). Interaction between prior knowledge and concept-map structure on hypertext comprehension, coherence of reading orders and disorientation. Interacting with Computers, 22(2), 88–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asan, A. (2007). Concept mapping in science class: A case study of fifth grade students. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 186–195.Google Scholar
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 961, 523–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 561, 45–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2009). Effects of a metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 251, 829–835. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (2001). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, L., Elen, J., Hellemans, J., Heerman, L., Couwenberg, I., Volckaert, L., & Morisse, H. (2001). The impact of concept mapping and visualization on the learning of secondary school chemistry students. International Journal of Scientific Education, 23(12), 1303–1313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., & Chen, I.-D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1), 5–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiou, C.-C. (2008). The effect of concept mapping on students’ learning achievemeants and interests. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 375–387.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clariana, R. B., & Wallace, P. E. (2009). A comparison of pair-wise, list-wise, and clustering approaches for eliciting structural knowledge in information systems courses. International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(3), 287–302.Google Scholar
Coiro. J. (2011). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. Theory Into Practice, 50(2), 107–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 621, 279–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, D. S., & Neitzel, C. (2012). Collaborative sense-making in print and digital text environments. Reading & Writing, 251, 831–856. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duchowski, A. (2007). Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice. Vol. 3731 (pp. 97). Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C. & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader-text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 515–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evrekli, E., Ïnel, D., & Balim A. G. (2010). Development of a scoring system to assess mind maps. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 21, 2330–2334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fesel, S. S., Segers, E., Clariana, R. B., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). Quality of children’s knowledge representations in digital text comprehension: Evidence from Pathfinder networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 481, 135 – 146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foltz, P. W. (1992). Readers’ comprehension and strategies in linear text and hypertext (No. 93–01). Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Institute of Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 471, 356–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 88–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzalvo, P., Cañas, J. J., & Bajo, M. (1994). Structural representations in knowledge acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 601–616. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). Prior knowledge activation: how different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science, 381, 417–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifenthaler, D., & Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2014). Model-based tools for knowledge assessment. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 289–301). New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, H. (2014). Understanding online reading through the eyes of first and second language readers: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 731, 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning that elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 3311, 772–775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (2005). An overview of top-down and bottom-up effects in comprehension: The CI perspective. Discourse Processes, 39(2&3), 125–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klois, S. S., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). How hypertext fosters children’s knowledge acquisition: The roles of text structure and graphical overview. Computers in Human Behavior, 291, 2047–2057. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koul, R., Clariana, R. B., & Salehi, R. (2005). Comparing several human and computer-based methods for scoring concept maps and essays. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 261–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawless, K.A., Mills, R., & Brown, S.W. (2003). Children’s hypertext navigation strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 274–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 221, 16–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magliano, J. P., Millis, K., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A multi-dimensional framework to evaluate assessment tools. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.) Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 107–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 581, 61–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manoli, P., & Papadopoulou, M. (2012). Reading strategies versus reading skills: Two faces of the same coin. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 461, 817–821. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naumann, J., Richter, T., Christmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2008). Working memory capacity and reading skill moderate the effectiveness of strategy training in learning from hypertext. Learning and Individual Differences, 181, 197–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 76(3), 413–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otter, M. & Johnson, H. (2000). Lost in hyperspace: metrics and mental models. Interacting with Computers, 131, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 191, 228–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodicio, H. G., Sánchez, E., & Acuña, S. R. (2013). Support for self-regulation in learning complex topics from multimedia explanations: do learners need extensive or minimal support? Instructional Science, 411, 539–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., Baccino, T., Cañas, J. J., Madrid, R. I., & Fajardo, I. (2009). Do graphical overviews facilitate or hinder comprehension in hypertext? Computers & Education, 531, 1308–1319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., Cañas, J. J., Kintsch, W. & Fajardo, I. (2005). Reading Strategies and Hypertext Comprehension. Discourse Processes, 40(3), 171–191.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., & García, V. (2011). Reading skills and children’s navigation strategies in hypertext. Computers in Human Behavior, 271, 1143–1151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Children’s reading of printed text and hypertext with navigation overviews: The role of comprehension, sustained attention, and visuo-spatial abilities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(1), 33–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory and Cognition, 34(5), 1157–1171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2010). Self-regulation and link selection strategies in hypertext. Discourse Processes, 471, 175–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmerón, L., Naumann, J., García, V., & Fajardo, I. (online, 2016). Scanning and deep processing of information in hypertext: an eye tracking and cued retrospective think‐aloud study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schvaneveldt, R. W., (Ed.) (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 57–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 191, 272–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trumpower, D. L., Sharara, H., & Goldsmith, T. E. (2010). Specificity of structural assessment of knowledge. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(5), 1–33.Google Scholar
Tzeng, J.-Y. (2010). Designs of concept maps and their impacts on readers’ performance in memory and reasoning while reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 128–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Brus, B. T., & Voeten, M. J. M. (Eds.) (1973). Een-minuuttest [One minute test]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Berkhout.Google Scholar
Van der Schoot, M., Vasbinder, A. L., Horsely, T. M., & Van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2008). The role of two reading strategies in text comprehension: An eye fixation study in primary school children. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(2), 203–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2001). Taaltoets Alle Kinderen [Language test for all children]. Arnhem: Cito.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children – third edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 331, 73–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (1998). Situation models: The mental leap into imagined worlds. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 15–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Shi, Yinghui, Huiyun Yang, Yi Dou & Yong Zeng
2023. Effects of mind mapping-based instruction on student cognitive learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Education Review 24:3 ► pp. 303 ff. DOI logo
Yadav, Savita, Pinaki Chakraborty, Lokesh Meena & Deepanshu Yadav
2022. Children’s Ability to Read from Computers and Smartphones. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 50:4 ► pp. 521 ff. DOI logo
Zhao, Li, Xiaohong Liu, Chenhui Wang & Yu-Sheng Su
2022. Effect of different mind mapping approaches on primary school students’ computational thinking skills during visual programming learning. Computers & Education 181 ► pp. 104445 ff. DOI logo
García, Victoria, Franck Amadieu & Ladislao Salmerón
2021. Integrating digital documents by means of concept maps: testing an intervention program with eye-movements modelling examples. Heliyon 7:12 ► pp. e08607 ff. DOI logo
Burin, Debora I., Federico Martin Gonzalez, Juan Pablo Barreyro & Irene Injoque-Ricle
2020. Metacognitive regulation contributes to digital text comprehension in E-learning. Metacognition and Learning 15:3 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo
Salmerón, Ladislao & Ana Llorens
2019. Instruction of Digital Reading Strategies Based on Eye-Movements Modeling Examples. Journal of Educational Computing Research 57:2 ► pp. 343 ff. DOI logo
Blom, Helen, Eliane Segers, Harry Knoors, Daan Hermans & Ludo Verhoeven
2018. Comprehension and navigation of networked hypertexts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 34:3 ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo
Segers, Eliane
2017. Children’s hypertext comprehension. In Developmental Perspectives in Written Language and Literacy, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.