Do graphic and textual interactive content organizers have the same impact on hypertext processing and learning outcome?

IF 4.5 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Computing in Higher Education Pub Date : 2022-06-27 DOI:10.1007/s12528-022-09328-z
M. Sanchiz, F. Amadieu, J. Lemarié, A. Tricot
{"title":"Do graphic and textual interactive content organizers have the same impact on hypertext processing and learning outcome?","authors":"M. Sanchiz, F. Amadieu, J. Lemarié, A. Tricot","doi":"10.1007/s12528-022-09328-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Learning with hypertexts require learners to navigate in a non-linear environment and build a coherent representation of the informational content. The expansion of digital technologies and hypertext use in higher education has emphasized the need to examine how technological tools may foster quality learning. This study examined how three types of interactive content organizers (COs) used to represent the main concepts and to navigate in the content pages can impact information processing and learning outcome. The COs designed for the experiment varied in terms of conceptual and navigation support they provide and format. Ninety-three undergraduates used a list of concepts that only provided conceptual support, a summary or a concept map that provided both conceptual and navigation support either with text or graphic format. Results showed that highly coherent COs such as summaries or concept maps improved navigation coherence. However, the summary focused the attention of learners and decreased hypertext exploration (<i>i.e.</i> longer time on the CO and fewer content pages accessed). Longer reading times of the summary also increased text-based outcome, whereas longer processing of the concept map improved inference-based outcome. Implications for the design of interactive COs used to access, navigate and a learn with hypertexts are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":15404,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Computing in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Computing in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09328-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Learning with hypertexts require learners to navigate in a non-linear environment and build a coherent representation of the informational content. The expansion of digital technologies and hypertext use in higher education has emphasized the need to examine how technological tools may foster quality learning. This study examined how three types of interactive content organizers (COs) used to represent the main concepts and to navigate in the content pages can impact information processing and learning outcome. The COs designed for the experiment varied in terms of conceptual and navigation support they provide and format. Ninety-three undergraduates used a list of concepts that only provided conceptual support, a summary or a concept map that provided both conceptual and navigation support either with text or graphic format. Results showed that highly coherent COs such as summaries or concept maps improved navigation coherence. However, the summary focused the attention of learners and decreased hypertext exploration (i.e. longer time on the CO and fewer content pages accessed). Longer reading times of the summary also increased text-based outcome, whereas longer processing of the concept map improved inference-based outcome. Implications for the design of interactive COs used to access, navigate and a learn with hypertexts are discussed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
图形和文本交互内容组织者对超文本处理和学习结果有相同的影响吗?
超文本学习要求学习者在非线性环境中导航,并建立信息内容的连贯表示。数字技术的扩展和超文本在高等教育中的使用强调了研究技术工具如何促进高质量学习的必要性。本研究考察了用于表示主要概念和在内容页面中导航的三种类型的交互式内容组织者(co)如何影响信息处理和学习结果。为实验设计的COs在概念和导航支持以及格式方面各不相同。93名本科生使用了仅提供概念支持的概念列表,摘要或概念图,以文本或图形形式提供概念和导航支持。结果表明,摘要或概念图等高度连贯的co可提高导航连贯性。然而,摘要集中了学习者的注意力,减少了超文本探索(即在CO上花费的时间更长,访问的内容页面更少)。更长的摘要阅读时间也增加了基于文本的结果,而更长的概念图处理时间提高了基于推理的结果。讨论了设计用于超文本访问、导航和学习的交互式COs的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Computing in Higher Education
Journal of Computing in Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
3.60%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Journal of Computing in Higher Education (JCHE) contributes to our understanding of the design, development, and implementation of instructional processes and technologies in higher education. JCHE publishes original research, literature reviews, implementation and evaluation studies, and theoretical, conceptual, and policy papers that provide perspectives on instructional technology’s role in improving access, affordability, and outcomes of postsecondary education.  Priority is given to well-documented original papers that demonstrate a strong grounding in learning theory and/or rigorous educational research design.
期刊最新文献
The effect of social anxiety on student interactions in asynchronous online discussion forums as mediated by social presence and moderated by anonymity Curriculum analytics in higher education institutions: a systematic literature review Group formation based on extraversion and prior knowledge: a randomized controlled study in higher education online A critique of calculation and optionalization applied to online/blended course design Exploring the role of a microlearning instructional approach in an introductory database programming course: an exploratory case study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1