Article published In:
Written Language & LiteracyVol. 19:2 (2016) ► pp.131–156
Strategy training and mind-mapping facilitates children’s hypertext comprehension
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.
References
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. 
Akyel, A., & Erçetin, G.
(2009) Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learners of English. System, 371, 136–152.
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.
Asan, A.
(2007) Concept mapping in science class: A case study of fifth grade students. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 186–195.
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G.
(2004) Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 961, 523–535.
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.
Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelkamp, C.
(2009) Effects of a metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 251, 829–835.
Block, C. C., & Pressley, M.
(2001) Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: Guilford Press.
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.
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.
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..
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.
Coiro. J.
(2011) Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. Theory Into Practice, 50(2), 107–115.
Davies, M.
(2011) Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 621, 279–301.
Davis, D. S., & Neitzel, C.
(2012) Collaborative sense-making in print and digital text environments. Reading & Writing, 251, 831–856.
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J.-A.
(2007) Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641.
Duchowski, A.
(2007) Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice. Vol. 3731 (pp. 97). Springer 2007.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H.
(1991) Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 88–96.
Gonzalvo, P., Cañas, J. J., & Bajo, M.
(1994) Structural representations in knowledge acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 601–616.
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.
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.
Kang, H.
(2014) Understanding online reading through the eyes of first and second language readers: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 731, 1–8.
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R.
(2011) Retrieval practice produces more learning that elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 3311, 772–775.
Kintsch, W.
(2005) An overview of top-down and bottom-up effects in comprehension: The CI perspective. Discourse Processes, 39(2&3), 125–128.
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.
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.
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.
Leopold, C., & Leutner, D.
(2012) Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 221, 16–26.
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.
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.
Manoli, P., & Papadopoulou, M.
(2012) Reading strategies versus reading skills: Two faces of the same coin. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 461, 817–821.
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.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O.
(2006) Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 76(3), 413–448.
Otter, M. & Johnson, H.
(2000) Lost in hyperspace: metrics and mental models. Interacting with Computers, 131, 1–40.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Salmerón, L., Cañas, J. J., Kintsch, W. & Fajardo, I.
(2005) Reading Strategies and Hypertext Comprehension. Discourse Processes, 40(3), 171–191..
Salmerón, L., & García, V.
(2011) Reading skills and children’s navigation strategies in hypertext. Computers in Human Behavior, 271, 1143–1151.
(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.
Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J.
(2006) Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory and Cognition, 34(5), 1157–1171.
Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E.
(2010) Self-regulation and link selection strategies in hypertext. Discourse Processes, 471, 175–211.
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.
Schvaneveldt, R. W.
(Ed.) (1990) Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Van Brus, B. T., & Voeten, M. J. M.
(Eds.) (1973) Een-minuuttest [One minute test]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Berkhout.
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.
Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A.
(2001) Taaltoets Alle Kinderen [Language test for all children]. Arnhem: Cito.
Wechsler, D.
(1991) Wechsler intelligence scale for children – third edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Zimmerman, B. J.
(1998) Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 331, 73–86.
Zwaan, R. A.
(1998) Situation models: The mental leap into imagined worlds. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 15–18.
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A.
(1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185.
Cited by
Cited by 8 other publications
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. 
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.
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.
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.
Segers, Eliane
2017. Children’s hypertext comprehension. In Developmental Perspectives in Written Language and Literacy,
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.
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.
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 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.