Locating information within extended hypermedia

  • Jennifer G. CromleyEmail author
  • Roger Azevedo
Research Article


New literacies researchers have identified a core set of strategies for locating information, one of which is “reading a Web page to locate information that might be present there” (Leu et al. in: Rush, Eakle, Berger (eds) Secondary school reading and writing: What research reveals for classroom practices, 2007, p. 46). Do middle-school, high school, and undergraduate students (N = 51) differ in effectiveness at locating information within extended hypermedia? Students completed a pretest measure of knowledge about the circulatory system. They then gave verbal answers to 10 researcher-developed questions about the circulatory system, which they answered by searching the environment and thinking aloud about the task. Consistent with large-scale national and international studies, students were only moderately successful at locating information. Successfully locating information was significantly associated with having more prior knowledge, efficient searching, and giving better quality answers to the researcher-posed questions. It was also associated with specific strategies only at the level of individual questions. That is, the “ideal” strategy depended on the question and how the answer was phrased in the text. Implications of the results for teaching students how to search in hypermedia are offered.


Search Hypermedia Science Knowledge 



This research was partially supported by funding from an AERA/Spencer Pre-Dissertation Fellowship to Jennifer Cromley and funding from the National Science Foundation (REC#0133346) and the University of Maryland’s College of Education and School of Graduate Studies awarded to Roger Azevedo. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading in Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2004). We would like to thank Dan Moos for his helpful comments. The authors would like to thank Danielle Fried for assistance with coding video data, Neil Hoffman for assistance with coding answers to the search questions, and the students, their parents, and schools for their participation in the study.


  1. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Green, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381–412. doi: 10.1007/s11251-005-1273-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilal, D., & Kirby, J. (2002). Differences and similarities in information seeking: Children and adults as web users. Information Processing & Management, 38(5), 649–670. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4573(01)00057-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bookseller. (2006). Eyewitness relaunch set for 2007. Bookseller, (5255), 10.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, G. T. L. (2003). Searching informational texts: Text and task characteristics that affect performance. Reading Online, 7(2). Available Accessed 25 July 2007.
  7. Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1/2), 87–110. doi: 10.1023/A:1011143116306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brusilovsky, P. (2003). Adaptive navigation support in educational hypermedia: The role of student knowledge level and the case for meta-adaptation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 487–497. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calisir, F., Eryazici, M., & Lehto, M. R. (2008). The effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on computer-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 439–450. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cataldo, M. G., & Cornoldi, C. (1998). Self-monitoring in poor and good reading comprehenders and their use of strategy. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16, 155–165.Google Scholar
  11. Cataldo, M. G., & Oakhill, J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 791–799. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chung, J. S., & Neuman, D. (2007). High school students’ information seeking and use for class projects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1503–1517. doi: 10.1002/asi.20637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, D. J., & Snowden, J. L. (2008). The relations between document familiarity, frequency, and prevalence and document literacy performance among adult readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(1), 9–26. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.1.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crain-Thoreson, C., Lippman, M. Z., & McClendon-Magnuson, D. (1997). Windows on comprehension: Reading comprehension processes as revealed by two think-aloud procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 579–591. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Desjarlais, M., & Willoughby, T. (2007). Supporting learners with low domain knowledge when using the internet. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 1–17. doi: 10.2190/K788-MK86-2342-3600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Electronic Document Systems Foundation. (2001). Printing in the age of the web & beyond. Downloaded from the World Wide Web on March 31, 2005 from
  18. Elley, W. B. (Ed.). (1994). The IEA study of reading-literacy: Achievement and instruction in thirty-two school systems. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fiorina, L., Antonietti, A., Colombo, B., & Bartolomeo, A. (2007). Thinking style, browsing primes and hypermedia navigation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 916–941. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Franklin, C. (2007). Factors that influence elementary teachers’ use of computers. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 15(2), 267–293.Google Scholar
  22. Gall, J. (2006). Orienting tasks and their impact on learning and attitudes in the use of hypertext. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(1), 5–29.Google Scholar
  23. Gauss, B., & Urbas, L. (2003). Individual differences in navigation between sharable content objects: An evaluation study of a learning module prototype. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 499–509. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gwizdka, J., & Spence, I. (2007). Implicit measures of lostness and success in web navigation. Interacting with Computers, 19(3), 357–369. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2007.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hegarty, M. (1991). Knowledge and processes in mechanical problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 253–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192. doi: 10.1080/0022027032000276961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henry, L. A. (2006). SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 614–627. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.7.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hitlin, P., & Rainie, L. (2005). Teens, technology, and school. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Downloaded from the World Wide Web on July 25, 2007 from
  29. International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National Educational Technology Standards for students. Downloaded from the World Wide Web on June 3, 2008 from
  30. Ishizuka, K. (2005). Teens are tech wizards? Not! School Library Journal, 51(4), 24–25.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, K. S., Farris, J. S., & Johnson, B. R. (2005). Why does the negative impact of inconsistent knowledge on web navigation persist? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 201–221. doi: 10.1207/s15327590ijhc1902_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Bell, S. M. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Update from the early childhood longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 52–60. doi: 10.3200/JOER.100.1.52-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirsch, I. S. (2001). The framework used in developing and interpreting the international adult literacy survey (IALS). European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 335–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kirsch, I. S., & Jungeblut, A. (1986). Literacy: Profile of America’s young adults. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  35. Kirsch, I. S., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  36. Kirsch, I. S., & Mosenthal, P. B. (1990). Toward an explanatory model of document literacy. Journal of Reading, 36, 322–327.Google Scholar
  37. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285–328. doi: 10.3102/00346543075003285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., Dunleavy, E., et al. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  39. Lajoie, S. P., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 803–822). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., & Guerrera, C. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155–186. doi: 10.1023/A:1003996000775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Large, A. (2005). Children, teenagers, and the web. Annual Review of Information Technology, 39(1), 347–392. doi: 10.1002/aris.1440390116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lawless, K. A., Schrader, P. G., & Mayall, H. J. (2007). Acquisition of information online: Knowledge, navigation and learning outcomes. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(3), 289–306.Google Scholar
  43. Lazonder, A. W. (2005). Do two heads search better that one? Effects of student collaboration on Web search behaviour and search outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 465–475. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00478.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Le Bigot, L., & Rouet, J. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students’ comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 445–470. doi: 10.1080/10862960701675317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A., & Macgill, A. R. (2008). Writing, technology, and teens. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Downloaded from the World Wide Web on June 10, 2008 from
  46. Leu, D. J., Zawilinksi, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y., et al. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In L. Rush, J. Eakle, & L. Berger (Eds.), Secondary school reading and writing: What research reveals for classroom practices (pp. 37–69). Chicago, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
  47. Müller-Kalthoff, T., & Möller, J. (2006). Browsing while reading: Effects of instructional design and learners’ prior knowledge. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 14(2), 183–198.Google Scholar
  48. Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2004). Persuasion as a dynamic, multidimensional process: An investigation of individual and intraindividual differences. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 337–363. doi: 10.3102/00028312041002337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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, 18(2), 197–213. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. OECD. (2002). Reading for change: Performance and engagement across countries, results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  51. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  52. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  53. Pak, R., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2006). Spatial ability subfactors and their influences on a computer-based information search task. Human Factors, 48(1), 154–165. doi: 10.1518/001872006776412180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Hübscher, R. (2004). CoMPASS: Improving navigational decisions and conceptual learning in hypermedia environments by using navigable conceptual maps. Human-Computer Interaction, 18(4), 395–428. doi: 10.1207/S15327051HCI1804_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reynolds, P. L., & Symons, S. (2001). Motivational variables and children’s text search. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 14–22. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roncevic, M. (2006). The Chicago manual of style gets digitized. Library Journal, 131(15), 88.Google Scholar
  58. Rouet, J.-F. (2003). What was I looking for? The influence of task specificity and prior knowledge on students’ search strategies in hypertext. Discourse Processes, 3(2), 163–186.Google Scholar
  59. Rouet, J.-F., & Coutelet, B. (2008). The acquisition of document search strategies in grade school students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 389–406. doi: 10.1002/acp.1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rouet, J.-F., Vidal-Abarca, E., Erboul, A. B., & Millogo, V. (2001). Effects of information search tasks on the comprehension of instructional text. Discourse Processes, 3(2), 163–186. doi: 10.1207/S15326950DP3102_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1157–1171.Google Scholar
  62. Schrader, P. G., Lawless, K., & Mayall, H. (2008). The model of domain learning as a framework for understanding internet navigation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 235.Google Scholar
  63. Sheehan, K. M., & Mislevy, R. J. (1990). Integrating cognitive and psychometric models in a measure of document literacy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 255–272. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1990.tb00747.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Nicholas, I., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. Downloaded from the World Wide Web on March 20, 2005 from
  65. Smith, M. C., Mikulecky, L., Kibby, M. W., Dreher, M. J., & Dole, J. A. (2000). What will be the demands of literacy in the workplace in the next millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 378–383. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.35.3.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A., & Hoffman, C. M. (2007). Digest of education statistics, 2006. NCES 2007-017.Google Scholar
  67. Symons, S., MacLatchy-Gaudet, H., Stone, T. D., & Reynolds, P. L. (2001). Strategy instruction for elementary students searching informational text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(1), 1–33. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0501_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. USPIRG. (2005). Ripoff 101: How the publishing industry’s practices needlessly drive up textbook costs. Downloaded from the World Wide Web on November 1, 2008 from
  69. Wecker, C., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2007). Computer literacy and inquiry learning: When geeks learn less. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 133. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00218.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005. Highlights. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  71. White, S., & Dillow, S. (2005). Key concepts and features of the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychological Studies in EducationTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyInstitute for Intelligent Systems, University of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations