Advertisement

Concept Maps for Comprehension and Navigation of Hypertexts

  • Franck Amadieu
  • Ladislao Salmerón
Chapter

Abstract

Comprehension and learning with hypertexts are challenging due to the nonlinearity of such digital documents. Processing hypertexts may involve navigation and comprehension problems, leading learners to cognitive overhead. Concept maps have been added to hypertexts to reduce the cognitive requirements of navigation and comprehension. This chapter explores the literature to examine the effects of concept maps on navigation, comprehension, and learning from hypertexts. The literature review aims to elucidate how concept maps may contribute to processing hypertexts and under which conditions. In spite of the variability of concept maps used in hypertexts, some findings converge. Concept maps reduce the cognitive requirements for processing hypertexts. They support outcomes as well as guiding learner navigation. They convey a macrostructure of the semantic relationships between content that supports more coherent navigation and promotes the construction of a mental representation of the information structure of hypertexts. In practice, concept maps are only beneficial for learners with low skills or low prior domain knowledge. Studies have shown that different strategies in processing concept maps may explain a part of the variance in the benefits provided by the concept maps. Processing that occurs early in the learning task yields better comprehension performance. The conclusions lead to recommendations for designing effective concept maps for learning from hypertexts. Further research could be conducted on the online processes by using eye movement recording in order to analyze dynamic processes during learning.

Keywords

Comprehension Concept map Hypertext Navigation Prior knowledge Skills 

References

  1. Amadieu, F., Cegarra, J., Salmerón, L., Lemarié, J., Chevalier, A., & Blat, S. (2012). Effects of Constructing Concept Maps While Navigating in a Hypertext. EARLI SIG 2 Comprehension of Text and Graphics, poster session. Grenoble.Google Scholar
  2. Amadieu, F., & Tricot, A. (2006). Utilisation d’un hypermédia et apprentissage: deux activités concurrentes ou complémentaires? Psychologie Française, 51(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amadieu, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009a). Prior knowledge in learning from a non-linear electronic document: Disorientation and coherence of the reading sequences. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amadieu, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009b). Exploratory study of relations between prior knowledge, comprehension, disorientation and on-line processes in hypertext. The Ergonomics Open Journal, 9, 49–57.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amadieu, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2011). Comprendre des documents non-linéaires: quelles ressources apportées par les connaissances antérieures ? L’année psychologique, 111, 359–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amadieu, F., van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bezdan, E., Kester, L., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). The influence of nodes sequence and extraneous load induced by graphical overviews on hypertext learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 870–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using hypertext to study and reason about historical evidence. In J.-F. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. P. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 43–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calisir, F., & Gurel, Z. (2003). Influence of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on reading comprehension, browsing and perceived control. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2), 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cress, U., & Knabel, O. B. (2003). Previews in hypertexts: effects on navigation and knowledge acquisition. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 517–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuddihy, E., & Spyridakis, J. H. (2012). The effect of visual design and placement of intra-article navigation schemes on reading comprehension and website user perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1399–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Danielson, D. (2002). Web navigation and the behavioral effects of constantly visible site maps. Interacting with Computers, 14(5), 601–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Jong, T. D., & van der Hulst, A. (2002). The effects of graphical overviews on knowledge acquisition in hypertext. Journal of Computer Assisted, 18, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farris, J. S., Jones, K. S., & Elgin, P. D. (2002). Users’ schemata of hypermedia: What is so spatial about a website? Interacting with Computers, 14, 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2009). Prior knowledge activation: how different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science, 38(4), 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hofman, R., & Oostendorp, H. V. (1999). Cognitive effects of a structural overview in a hypertext. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kester, L., & Kirschner, P. (2009). Effects of fading support on hypertext navigation and performance in student-centered e-learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(2), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Le Bigot, L., & Rouet, J.-F. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, S.-S., & Lee, Y. H. K. (1991). Effects of learner-control versus program-control strategies on computer-aided learning of chemistry problems: For acquisition or review? Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lorch, R. F., & Lorch, P. E. (1996). Effects of organizational signals on free recall of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Madrid, I. R., Van Oostendorp, H., & PuertaMelguizo, M. C. (2009). The effects of the number of links and navigation support on cognitive load and learning with hypertext: The mediating role of reading order. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayer, R. E. (1979). Twenty years of research on advance organizers: Assimilation theory is still the best predictor of results. Instructional Science, 8, 133–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43–64.Google Scholar
  30. McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. J. (1998). Navigation in hyperspace: An evaluation of the effects of navigational tools and subject matter expertise on browsing and information retrieval in hypertext. Interacting with Computers, 10, 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. J. (1999). Spatial versus conceptual maps as learning tools in hypertext. Journal of Education Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(1), 43–64.Google Scholar
  32. Moos, D. C., & Marroquin, E. (2010). Multimedia, hypermedia, and hypertext: Motivation considered and reconsidered. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Müller-Kalthoff, T., & Möller, J. (2003). The effects of graphical overviews, prior knowledge, and self-concept on hypertext disorientation and learning achievement. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(2), 117–134.Google Scholar
  34. Müller-Kalthoff, T., & Möller, J. (2004). The use of graphical overviews in hypertext learning environments. SIGs Instructional Design and Learning, 220–228. Retrieved from http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/workshops/sim2004/pdf_files/Mueller_Kalthoff_et_al.pdf.
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Naumann, J., Richter, T., Flender, J., Christmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2007). Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for deficits in reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 791–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nilsson, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). The effects of graphic organizers giving cues to the structure of a hypertext document on users’ navigation strategies and performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Padovani, S., & Lansdale, M. (2003). Balancing search and retrieval in hypertext: context-specific trade-offs in navigational tool use. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(1), 125–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Patel, S. C., Drury, C. G., & Shalin, V. L. (1998). Effectiveness of expert semantic knowledge as a navigational aid within hypertext. Behaviour & Information Technology, 17(6), 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Payne, S., & Reader, W. (2006). Constructing structure maps of multiple on-line texts. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(5), 461–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Potelle, H., & Rouet, J.-F. (2003). Effects of content representation and readers’ prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(3), 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Puntambekar, S., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Effect of visual representation of the conceptual structure of the domain on science learning and navigation in a hypertext environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16, 429–459.Google Scholar
  46. Recker, M., & Pirolli, P. (1995). Modeling individual differences in student’s learning strategies. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rouet, J.-F., Vörös, Z., & Pléh, C. (2012). Incidental learning of links during navigation: the role of visuo-spatial capacity. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(1), 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruttun, R. D., & Macredie, R. D. (2012). The effects of individual differences and visual instructional aids on disorientation, learning performance and attitudes in a hypermedia learning system. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2182–2198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Salmerón, L., Baccino, T., Canas, J. J., Madrid, R. I., & Fajardo, I. (2009). Do graphical overviews facilitate or hinder comprehension in hypertext? Computers & Education, 53(4), 1308–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Salmerón, L., Cañas, J. J., Kintsch, W., & Fajardo, I. (2005). Reading strategies and hypertext comprehension. Discourse Processes, 40(3), 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Salmerón, L., & García, V. (2011). Reading skills and children’s navigation strategies in hypertext. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1143–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Salmerón, L., & García, V. (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, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Salmerón, L., Gil, L., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. (2010). Comprehension effects of signalling relationships between documents in search engines. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning with hypertext. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1157–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(2), 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scott, B. M., & Schwartz, N. H. (2007). Navigational spatial displays: The role of metacognition as cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shapiro, A. M. (1999). The relevance of hierarchies to learning biology from hypertext. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(2), 215–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 605–620). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  59. Shin, E., Schallert, D., & Savenye, C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students’ learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Trumpower, D. L., & Goldsmith, T. E. (2004). Structural enhancement of learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 426–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Bétrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vörös, Z., Rouet, J.-F., & Pléh, C. (2009). Content maps help low spatial capacity users memorize link structures in hypertext. The Ergonomics Open Journal, 2, 88–96.Google Scholar
  64. Vörös, Z., Rouet, J.-F., & Pléh, C. (2011). Effect of high-level content organizers on hypertext learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 2047–2055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zumbach, J., & Mohraz, M. (2008). Cognitive load in hypermedia reading comprehension: Influence of text type and linearity. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 875–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CLLE-LTC, University of ToulouseToulouse CedexFrance
  2. 2.University of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations