Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6732
  • E-ISSN: 1570-6001
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. 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: 10.1037/0022‑0663.86.2.303
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.303 [Google Scholar]
  2. Akyel, A. , & Erçetin, G.
    (2009) Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learners of English. System, 37, 136–152. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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: 10.1016/j.intcom.2009.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Asan, A.
    (2007) Concept mapping in science class: A case study of fifth grade students. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 186–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Azevedo, R. , & Cromley, J. G.
    (2004) Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia?Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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, 56, 45–72. doi: 10.1007/s11423‑007‑9067‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9067-0 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bannert, M. , Hildebrand, M. , & Mengelkamp, C.
    (2009) Effects of a metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 829–835. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Block, C. C. , & Pressley, M.
    (2001) Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Coiro. J.
    (2011) Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. Theory Into Practice, 50(2), 107–115. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2011.558435
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.558435 [Google Scholar]
  14. Davies, M.
    (2011) Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter?Higher Education, 62, 279–301. doi: 10.1007/s10734‑010‑9387‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6 [Google Scholar]
  15. Davis, D. S. , & Neitzel, C.
    (2012) Collaborative sense-making in print and digital text environments. Reading & Writing, 25, 831–856. doi: 10.1007/s11145‑011‑9302‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9302-2 [Google Scholar]
  16. DeStefano, D. , & LeFevre, J.-A.
    (2007) Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641. doi: 10.1007/BF03059634
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03059634 [Google Scholar]
  17. Duchowski, A.
    (2007) Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice. Vol.373 (pp.97). Springer 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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: 10.1037/a0027182
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027182 [Google Scholar]
  20. Evrekli, E. , Ïnel, D. , & Balim A. G.
    (2010) Development of a scoring system to assess mind maps. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2330–2334. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.331
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.331 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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, 48, 135 – 146.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. 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, 47, 356–381. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.027
    https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027 [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldsmith, T. E. , Johnson, P. J. , & Acton, W. H.
    (1991) Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 88–96. doi: 10.1037/0022‑0663.83.1.88
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.88 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gonzalvo, P. , Cañas, J. J. , & Bajo, M.
    (1994) Structural representations in knowledge acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 601–616. doi: 10.1037/0022‑0663.86.4.601
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.4.601 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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, 38, 417–433. doi: 10.1007/s11251‑008‑9090‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9090-5 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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: 10.1007/978‑1‑4614‑3185‑5_23
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_23 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kang, H.
    (2014) Understanding online reading through the eyes of first and second language readers: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 73, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  29. Karpicke, J. D. , & Blunt, J. R.
    (2011) Retrieval practice produces more learning that elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775. doi: 10.1126/science.1199327
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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: 10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651676
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651676 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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, 29, 2047–2057. doi: 10,1016/j.chb.2013.03.013
    https://doi.org/10,1016/j.chb.2013.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  32. 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: 10.2190/5X9Y‑0ETN‑213U‑8FV7
    https://doi.org/10.2190/5X9Y-0ETN-213U-8FV7 [Google Scholar]
  33. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Leopold, C. , & Leutner, D.
    (2012) Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22, 16–26. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  36. 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, 58, 61–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. Manoli, P. , & Papadopoulou, M.
    (2012) Reading strategies versus reading skills: Two faces of the same coin. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 817–821. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.205
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.205 [Google Scholar]
  38. 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, 197–213. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.08.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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: 10.3102/00346543076003413
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003413 [Google Scholar]
  40. Otter, M. & Johnson, H.
    (2000) Lost in hyperspace: metrics and mental models. Interacting with Computers, 13, 1–40. doi: 10.1016/S0953‑5438(00)00030‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00030-8 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ozuru, Y. , Dempsey, K. , & McNamara, D. S.
    (2009) Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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: 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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, 41, 539–553. doi: 10.1007/s11251‑012‑9243‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9243-4 [Google Scholar]
  44. Salmerón, L. , Baccino, T. , Cañas, J. J. , Madrid, R. I. , & Fajardo, I.
    (2009) Do graphical overviews facilitate or hinder comprehension in hypertext?Computers & Education, 53, 1308–1319. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  45. Salmerón, L. , Cañas, J. J. , Kintsch, W. & Fajardo, I.
    (2005) Reading Strategies and Hypertext Comprehension. Discourse Processes, 40(3), 171–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Salmerón, L. , & García, V.
    (2011) Reading skills and children’s navigation strategies in hypertext. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1143–1151. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  47. (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: 10.2190/EC.47.1.b
    https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.47.1.b [Google Scholar]
  48. 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: 10.3758/BF03193262
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193262 [Google Scholar]
  49. Salmerón, L. , Kintsch, W. , & Kintsch, E.
    (2010) Self-regulation and link selection strategies in hypertext. Discourse Processes, 47, 175–211. doi: 10.1080/01638530902728280
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728280 [Google Scholar]
  50. 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: 10.1111/jcal.12152
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12152 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schvaneveldt, R. W.
    (Ed.) (1990) Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 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: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  53. Spörer, N. , Brunstein, J. C. , & Kieschke, U.
    (2009) Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19, 272–286. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  54. 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]
  55. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Brus, B. T. , & Voeten, M. J. M.
    (Eds.) (1973) Een-minuuttest [One minute test]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Berkhout.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 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: 10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2007.00354.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00354.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Verhoeven, L. , & Vermeer, A.
    (2001) Taaltoets Alle Kinderen [Language test for all children]. Arnhem: Cito.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Wechsler, D.
    (1991) Wechsler intelligence scale for children – third edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Zimmerman, B. J.
    (1998) Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73–86. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1998.9653292
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1998.9653292 [Google Scholar]
  61. Zwaan, R. A.
    (1998) Situation models: The mental leap into imagined worlds. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 15–18. doi: 10.1111/1467‑8721.00004
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00004 [Google Scholar]
  62. Zwaan, R. A. , & Radvansky, G. A.
    (1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.123.2.162
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error