The influence of node sequence and extraneous load induced by graphical overviews on hypertext learning

Abstract

The effects of four hypertext learning environments with a hierarchical graphical overview were studied on the coherence of the node sequence, extraneous load and comprehension. Navigation patterns were influenced by the type of overview provided (i.e., dynamic, static) and whether navigation was restricted (i.e., restricted, non-restricted). It was hypothesised that redundant use of the overview for inducing a high-coherence reading sequence would result in high extraneous load and low comprehension. Coherence was higher in the dynamic than in the static conditions. Coherence was also higher in the restricted than in the non-restricted conditions. Mental effort as a measure of extraneous load was higher at the end than at the beginning of the learning phase, especially in the dynamic restricted and the static nonrestricted conditions, although there was no significant interaction. Comprehension was lowest in the dynamic restricted condition and highest in the dynamic non-restricted and static restricted conditions. Low comprehension in the dynamic restricted condition indicates that overviews can become redundant for reading sequence coherence, negatively impacting comprehension. The evidence suggests that severe restriction of navigation paths should be avoided and that continuous use of overviews such as in dynamic overviews may be detrimental to learning.

Learning and navigating in hypertext: Navigational support by hierarchical menu or tag cloud?

“…Generally, one can conclude that a hierarchical organizer is slightly better for navigation compared to a network organizer (Amadieu et al, 2009), using dynamic menus hinders task performance (Bezdan et al, 2013), and it is not wise to severely restrict learner navigation paths (Bezdan et al, 2013). Furthermore, vertical menus are preferred over dynamic menus (Leuthold Navigating in hypertext 6 et al, 2009).…”

“…Previous research on HLEs compared different types of graphical overviews (e.g., Amadieu et al, 2009;Bezdan, Kester & Kirschner, 2013) or different types of hierarchical menus (e.g., Leuthold, Schmutz, Bargas-Avila, Tuch & Opwis, 2011;Puerta Melguizo et al, 2012).…”

O Uso da Trajetória de Aprendizagem do Aluno em Ambientes Virtuais de Aprendizagem

“…Novas Tecnologias na Educação ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ V. 13 Nº 1, julho, 2015____________________________________________________________ aprendizagem) (Bezdan et al, 2013;Ceddia et al, 2007). Esse tipo de comparação pode servir para identificar se determinadas atividades foram realizadas e se foram realizadas de forma correta.…”

“…A trajetória também pode auxiliar na validação da interface de um ambiente. Bezdan et al (2013) descreve um método para realizar esse tipo de análise. Em seu trabalho as sequências de páginas acessadas são representadas através de uma cadeia de caracteres (string), onde cada letra representa uma página distinta.…”

Linguistic Analysis of High-Tech Production Complex

“…Linguistic methods of "soft" computing used in linguistic modeling provide much more possibilities for description of real phenomena as compared with the formalism of classic mathematics, and at the same time they do not allow many formally equivalent transformations of their constructions, which are admissible in mathematics, which seems to be the main advantage of linguistic modeling (Bezdan, E. et al, 2013). The models constructed using the linguistic tools of "soft" computing are attributed to the class of linguistic models with the following characteristics: the variables applied in such models are qualitative (semantic) rather than quantitative, with words and phrases in the natural language (rather than numbers) being their values; relationships between the linguistic variables are not represented by mathematical formulae, but determined linguistically -in the form of verbal expressions; efficiency criteria are set by qualitative recommendations regarding desirability, preferability or non-feasibility of obtained solution options rather than estimated in a form of mathematical functionality (Khrustalev, E.Iu., 2014).…”