Dr Jon Loose {j.loose@heythrop.ac.uk} Heythrop College, University of London

1. Dr Jon Loose {j.loose@heythrop.ac.uk} Heythrop College, University of London Kensington Square, London W8 5HQ Effective Technology for Effective Reading: Innovative use of hyperlinks in online readings for low prior knowledge learners

2. MOTIVATION To consider how hyperlinked text might be best used in learning resources to provide an effective experience of reading and learning for level 1 undergraduates.

3. Introduction • LINKS: “It’s all in the link” (Carusi, 2006) • Benefits & risks of hypertext • LEARNERS: Prior knowledge (Shapiro, 2008) • Metacognition & scaffolding. • LOOKBACK: Reading Styles & Comprehension (Hyönä & Nurminen, 2006)

4. 1. LINKS: Benefits & Risks

5. 1. LINKS: Benefits & Risks “...The non-linear structure of the information ... is considered particularly beneficial to learning. This idea is grounded in the extensive contemporary research on instruction and learning, which generally conceptualizes learning as an active, constructive process of building up and changing mental structures (for example, Jonassen, 1991).” (Müller-Kalthoff & Möller, 2006, p. 184)

6. 1. LINKS: Benefits & Risks

7. 1. LINKS: Benefits & Risks “... difficulties fall into two basic categories: problems of disorientation (being lost in hyperspace) and cognitive overload. Both make it difficult to concentrate on the context of a text and thus inhibit deeper-level information processing.” (Müller-Kalthoff & Möller, 2006, p. 184)

8. 1. LINKS: Benefits & Risks

9. 2 - LEARNERS & Prior Knowledge “Roughly speaking, the more guidance and control hypertexts supply the closer they are to traditional book forms.” (Carusi, 2006, p. 164).

10. 3 - LOOKBACK: Four Reading Styles (Hyönä & Nurminen, 2006; Hyönä, Lorch, & Kaakinen, 2002)

11. Initial Question: Can a limited use of hyperlinks help ‘low prior knowledge’ learners to look back strategically in text, to reduce disorientation, and to improve comprehension?

12. ...developing the question • Qualitative Pilot Study: • Online reading: Participants read material online with limited navigation between pages and to/from section summaries. • Semi-structured interviews: explored the experience of reading the material, and also experience of research online. • Striking result: Extensive and highly elaborated descriptions of disorientation when working online.

13. ...focusing the question Are low prior knowledge learners with different reading styles likely to experience different levels of confusion in undertaking research on the internet?

14. Method • Participants: • 289 Upper sixth form students (40M, 249F) • Materials: • Questionnaire Part 1: Reading style (Hyönä & Nurminen, 2006) • Questionnaire Part 2: Confusion when researching a new topic on the internet research. (α = 0.791) • Design • Identify reading styles from Part 1 • Identify differences in confusion across groups.

15. Results: Cluster Analysis

16. Results: Group Differences • Significant differences between groups • F(3,273) = 3.932, p < 0.01 • Group differences: • minimally reflective vs structured lookback groups (p < 0.05). • minimally reflective vs rereading groups (p < 0.05).

17. Results: Group Differences • Significant differences between groups • F(3,273) = 3.932, p < 0.01 • Group differences: • minimally reflective vs structured lookback groups (p < 0.05). • minimally reflective vs rereading groups (p < 0.05). Learners with a minimally reflective reading style experience less confusion in internet research compared with either structured lookback readers or rereading readers.

18. Tentative Conclusions: • The best readers may not be the best researchers in a non-linear hypertext environment. • Those who strategically reread or look back in ‘linear’ texts comprehend those texts better. • Those who thoughtfully skim written material experience less confusion when researching online. • All readers need advice on the best way to benefit from materials of different kinds.

19. Tentative Conclusions: • The best readers may not be the best researchers in a non-linear hypertext environment. • Those who strategically reread or look back in texts comprehend those texts better. • Those who thoughtfully skim written material experience less confusion when researching online. • All readers need advice on the best way to benefit from materials of different kinds. Learning materials are likely to be most effective if they contain both highly interlinked material and linear texts in which links are sparse or absent.

20. References • Carusi, A. (2006). Textual Practitioners: A Comparison of Hypertext Theory and Phenomenology of Reading. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 5 (2). • Hyönä, J., & Nurminen, A. (2006). Do adult readers know how they read? Evidence from eye movement patterns and verbal reports. British Journal of Psychology, 97. • Lee, M. (2005). Expanding hypertext: Does it address disorientation? Depends on individuals' adventurousness. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (3). • Mayer. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. J. (1998). Effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on navigation in hypertext. Human Factors. • Müller-Kalthoff, T., & Möller, J. (2006). Browsing while reading: effects of instructional design and learners' prior knowledge. ALT-J . • Shapiro, A. M. (2008). Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Education Technology Research Development. • Shin, E. C., Schallert, D. L., & Savenye, W. C. (1994). Effects of learner control advisement, and prior knowledge on yog students’ learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology Research and Development.