This study investigated the effects of two different computer texts on readers' recall with three different content types (Blocked Constructs, Ordered Constructs, and Detail Layered Constructs) based on individuals' different working memory capacities. The findings indicated that the format and content types influenced how well information was remembered among readers. Participants with low working memory who read traditional scrolling text produced better recall scores than those who read the paged hypertext in two of the three content types. However, for those with high working memory capacity, all results came out differently depending on the content types.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JohnsonS., Interface Culture: How New Technology Transforms the Way We Create and Communicate, Harper, San Francisco, California, 1997.
2.
EvelandW. P. and DunwoodyS., An Investigation of Elaboration and Selective Scanning as Mediators of Learning from the Web versus Print, Journal of Broadcasting & Electric Media, 46, pp. 34–53, 2002.
3.
LeeM. J. and TedderM. C., The Effects of Three Different Computer Texts on Readers' Recall Based on Working Memory Capacity, Computers in Human Behavior, 19: 6, pp. 767–783, 2003.
4.
LeeM. J.FergusonM. A., and TedderM. C., The Effects of Three Different Computer Texts on Readers' Recall (Based on Working Memory, Risk-Taking Tendencies and Hypertext Familiarity and Knowledge), paper presented at the National Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1999.
5.
LeeM. J., Effective TailoredCommunication: ExpandingHypertext, WorkingMemory and Risk Taking Tendency, dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 2001.
6.
LeeM. J. and TedderM. C., Introducing Expending Hypertext Based on Working Memory Capacity and the Feeling of Disorientation: Tailored Communication through Effective Hypertext Design, Educational Computing Research, 30: 3, pp. 171–195, 2004.
7.
TewksburyD. and AlthausS., Differences in Knowledge Acquisition among Readers of the Paper and Online Versions of a National Newspaper, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, pp. 457–479, 2000.
8.
BourneD. E., Computer-Assisted Instruction, Learning Theory, and Hypermedia: An Associative Linkage, Research Strategies, 8: 4, pp. 160–171, 1990.
9.
Dee-LucasD. and LarkinJ. H., Learning from Electronic Texts: Effects of Interactive Overviews for Information Access, Cognition and Instruction, 13: 3, pp. 431–468, 1995.
10.
CollaudG., A Hypertext Environment for Linear Optimization, Decision Support Systems, 23, pp. 111–131, 1998.
11.
PohlM. P. and PurgathoferP., Hypertext Authoring and Visualization, Human-Computer Studies, 52, pp. 809–825, 2000.
12.
McEneaneyE. J., Graphic and Numerical Methods to Assess Navigation in Hypertext, Human-Computer Studies, 55, pp. 761–786, 2001.
13.
HellerR. S., The Role of Hypermedia in Education: A Look at the Research Issues, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22, pp. 421–441, 1990.
14.
JonassenD. H. and WangS., Acquiring Structural Knowledge from Semantically Structured Hypertext, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Development of Computer-Based Instructional Systems, San Diego, California, 1990.
15.
SchroederE. E., Navigating through Hypertext: Navigational Technique, Individual Differences, and Learning, paper presented at the 1994 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, Tennessee, 1994.
16.
JonassenD. H. and GrabingerR. S., Problems and Issues in Designing Hypertext/Hypermedia for Learning, in Designing Hypermedia for Learning, JonassenD. H. and MandleH. (eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 3–25, 1990.
17.
McAlleseR., The Acquisition and Representations of Domain Specific Knowledge Using Notecard, in Hypermedia Courseware Structures of Communication and Intelligent Help, McAleeseR. (ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 11–18, 1991.
18.
DiasP.GomesM. J., and CorreiaA. P., Disorientation in Hypermedia Environments: Mechanisms to Support Navigation, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20: 2, pp. 93–117, 1999.
LinC. and DavidsonG., Effect of Linking Structure and Cognitive Style on Students' Performance and Attitude in a Computer-Based Hypertext Environment, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15: 4, pp. 317–329, 1996.
21.
LiuM., Hypermedia-Assisted Instruction and Second Language Learning: A Semantic-Network-Based Approach, Computers in Schools, 10: 3/4, pp. 293–312, 1994.
22.
FitzgeraldG. E., Expert and Novice Performance in a Hypermedia Learning Environment for Classroom Observation Skills: The Impact of Prior Teaching Experience, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19: 2, pp. 115–131, 1998.
23.
ConklinE. J., Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey, IEEE Computer, 2, pp. 17–41, 1987.
24.
NewmarchJ., An Investigation into the Effect of Hypertext Structure on Student Use of Courseware, paper presented at WebNet 98, Orlando, Florida, 1998.
25.
McDonaldS., Effects of Text Structure and Prior Knowledge of the Learner on Navigation in Hypertext, Human Factors, 40: 1, pp. 18–27, 1998.
26.
ShapiroA., Promoting Active Learning: The Role of System Structure in Learning from Hypertext, Human-Computer Interaction, 13, pp. 1–35, 1998.
27.
PohlM., Hypermedia as a Cognitive Tool, paper presented at 98 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications, ERIC microfiche ED428709, 1998.
28.
LastD. A.O'DonnellA. M., and KellyA. E., Using Hypermedia: Effects of Prior Knowledge and Goal Strength, Technology and Teacher Education Annual Convention, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421146, pp. 476–479, 1998.
29.
Van NimwegenD.PouwM., and OostendorpH., The Influence of Structure and Reading-Manipulation on Usability of Hypertexts, Interacting with Computers, 12: 1, pp. 7–21, 1999.
30.
ChenC.CzerwinskiM., and MacRediR., Individual Differences in Virtual Environments-Striking the Balance, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51: 6, pp. 499–507, 2000.
31.
BaddeleyA. D., Working Memory, Oxford University Press, New York, 1986.
32.
WengerM. J., Comprehension and Retention of Nonlinear Text: Considerations of Working Memory and Material-Appropriate Processing, American Journal of Psychology, 109: 1, pp. 93–130, 1996.
33.
KintschW. and Van DijkT. A., Toward a Model of Text Comprehension and Production, Psychology Review, 85, pp. 363–394, 1978.
34.
Lee-SammonsW. and WhitneyP., Reading Perspectives and Memory for Text: An Individual Differences Analysis, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, pp. 1074–1081, 1991.
35.
YuillN.OakhillJ., and ParkinA., Working Memory, Comprehension Ability and the Resolution of Text Anomaly, British Journal of Psychology, 80, pp. 351–361, 1989.
36.
BaddeleyA. D.LogieR.Nimmo-SmithI., and BreretonN., Components of Fluent Reading, Journal of Memory and Language, 24, pp. 119–131, 1985.
37.
BuddD.WhitneyP., and TurleyK. J., Individual Differences in Working Memory Strategies for Reading Expository Text, Memory and Cognition, 23: 6, pp. 735–748, 1995.
38.
CarpenterP. A. and JustM. A., The Role of Working Memory in Language Comprehension, in Complex Information Processing: The Impact of Herbert A. Simon, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 31–68, 1989.
39.
DanemanM. and CarpenterP. A., Individual Differences in Working Memory and Reading, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, pp. 450–466, 1980.
40.
HansenE. G.MislevyR. J.SteinbergL. S.LeeM. J., and ForerD. C., Accessibility of Tests Within a Validity Framework, System, Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 33, pp. 107–133, 2005.
41.
LeeM. J., Introducing Expanding Hypertext Based on Working Memory Capacity and the Feeling of Disorientation Tailored Communication Through Effective Hypertext Design, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30: 3, pp. 171–195, 2004.
42.
LeeM. J.XieG., and TedderM. C., Effective Computer Text Design to Enhance Readers' Recall: Text Formats, Individual Working Memory Capacity and Content Type. Paper prsented to International Communication Association, New Orleans, 2004.
43.
LeeM. J., and TedderM. C., The Effects of Three Different Computer Texts on Readers' Recall (Based on Working Memory, Risk-Taking Tendencies, and Hypertext Familiarity and Knowledge), Computers in Human Behavior, 19: 6, pp. 767–783, 2003.
44.
LeeM. J. and FergusonM. A., The Effects of Anti-Tobacco Advertisements Based on Risk-Taking Tendencies: Realistic Fear Ads versus Gross Humor Ads, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79: 4, pp. 945–963, 2002.
45.
LeeM. J. and TedderM. C.Effective Tailored Communication in Learning from Hypertext. Paper presented at International Communication Association, Annual Convention, South Korea, 2002.
46.
HansenE.LeeM. J., and ForerD., A “Self-Voicing” Test for People with Visual and Learning Disabilities, Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96: 4, pp. 273–275, April, 2002.
47.
LeeM. J. and TedderM. C., The Effect of Hypertext on Readers' Recall and Comprehension Based on Working Memory Span. Paper presented to the National Communication Association Annual Convention, Chicago, 1999.
