Having low domain knowledge is a significant constraint when using the Internet. This study examined the effectiveness of three potential supports for learners with low domain knowledge, including having plenty of time to search the Internet, using notes taken during the search when writing an essay about the topic, and having high levels of motivation to use the Internet. Sixty undergraduate students were randomly assigned to: a) search the Internet for 60 minutes prior to writing an essay with notes present; b) search the Internet for 60 minutes prior to writing an essay without notes present; or c) write an essay with no prior search of the Internet. Participants completed two essays, one in a high knowledge domain and another in a low knowledge domain. Searching the Internet facilitated learning regardless of domain knowledge. The significant support for low domain knowledge was providing plenty of time to search the Internet.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BentonS. L.KiewraK. A.WhitfillJ. M., & DennisonR. (1993). Encoding and external storage effects on writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 267–280.
2.
BjorklundD. F., & SchneiderW. (1996). The interaction of knowledge, aptitude, and strategies in children's memory performance. In ReeseH. W. (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 26, pp. 59–89). San Diego: Academic Press.
3.
ChiM. (1978). Children's thinking: What develops? In SieglerR. S. (Eds.), Knowledge structures and memory development (pp. 73–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
ChiesiH.SpilichG., & VossJ. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 257–274.
5.
DiasP., & SousaA. P. (1997). Understanding navigation and disorientation in hypermedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6, 173–185.
6.
DowningR. E.MooreJ. L., & BrownS. W. (2005). The effects and interaction of spatial visualization and domain expertise on information seeking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 195–209.
FoltzP. W. (1996). Comprehension, coherence, and strategies in hypertext and linear text. In RouetJ.DillonA., & SpiroR. J. (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 109–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
FordN., & ChenS. Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation, and learning: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 281–311.
KelloggR. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 355–365.
12.
KiewraK. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.
13.
KiewraK. A.DuBoisN. F.ChristianD.McShaneA.MeyerhofferM., & RoskelleyD. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 240–245.
14.
LastD. A.O'DonnellA. M., & KellyA. E. (2001). The effects of prior knowledge and goal strength on the use of hypermedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10, 3–25.
15.
LawlessK. A.BrownS. W.MillsR., & MayallH. J. (2003). Knowledge, interest, recall and navigation: A look at hypertext processing. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 911–934.
16.
LawlessK. A., & KulikowichJ. M. (1996). Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 385–399.
17.
LawlessK. A.SchraderP. G., & MayallH. J. (2006, April). The impact of domain knowledge and navigation on learning online. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
18.
LidstoneJ., & LucasK. B. (1998). Teaching and learning research methodology from interactive multimedia programs: Postgraduate students' engagement with an innovative program. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 7, 237–261.
19.
MarchioniniG.DwigginsS.KatzA., & LinX. (1993). Information seeking in full-text end-user-oriented search systems: The roles of domain and search expertise. Library and Information Science Research, 15, 35–69.
20.
MayerR. E.MathiasA., & WetzellK. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 147–154.
21.
McDonaldS., & StevensonR. J. (1998). Navigation in hyperspace: An evaluation of the effects of navigational tools and subject matter expertise on browsing and information retrieval in hypertext. Interacting with Computers, 10, 129–142.
22.
MorenoR., & MayerR. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.
23.
PatelS. C.DruryC. G., & ShalinV. L. (1998). Effectiveness of expert semantic knowledge as a navigational aid within hypertext. Behavior and Information Technology, 17, 313–324.
24.
PintrichP. R., & De GrootE. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
25.
RiffeD.LacyS., & FicoF. G. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Quantitative content analysis.New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
26.
SchneiderW.KorkelJ., & WeinertF. (1990). Expert knowledge, general abilities, and text processing. In SchneiderW. & WeinertF., (Eds.) Interactions Among Aptitudes, Strategies, and Knowledge in Cognitive Performance (pp. 235–250). New York: Springer-Verlag.
27.
ShapiroA. (1999). The relationship between prior knowledge and interactive overviews during hypermedia-aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 143–167.
28.
ShuellT. J., & FarberS. L. (2001). Students' perceptions of technology use in college courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24, 119–138.
29.
SlotteV., & LonkaK. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 1–20.
30.
SmallR. V., & FerreiraS. M. (1994, February). Multimedia vs. print information resources: Information location and use, motivation, and learning patterns for children and adults. Paper presented at the 1994 National convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN.
31.
SpilichG. J.VesonderG. T.ChejeseH. L., & VossJ. F. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Learning Behavior, 18, 275–290.
32.
SteinB. S.MorrisC. D., & BransfordJ. D. (1978). Constraints on effective elaboration. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 17, 707–714.
33.
Watson, (1998). “If you don't have it, you can find it.” A close look at students' perceptions of using technology. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 49, 1024–1036.
34.
WilloughbyT.AndersonA. S.WoodE.MuellerJ., & RossC. (2006). Learning from the Internet: Does prior knowledge matter? Article submitted for publication.
35.
WintersF. I.AzevedoR., & LevinD. M. (2004, April). How do highschool students regulate their learning when using a computer-based environment to collaboratively engage in inquiry? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
36.
YangY. (1991–1992). The effects of media on motivation and content recall: Comparison of computer- and print-based instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 20, 95–105.
