INTERACTION OF HYPERTEXT FORMS AND GLOBAL VERSUS SEQUENTIAL LEARNING STYLES

J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol. 32(1) 79-91, 2005

INTERACTION OF HYPERTEXT FORMS AND GLOBAL

VERSUS SEQUENTIAL LEARNING STYLES

ANDREAS DÜNSERMARCO JIRASKO

University of Vienna, Austria

ABSTRACT

In this study, the relevance of the distinction between sequential and global

learners in the context of learning with hypertext was investigated. Learners

with global learning style were expected to produce better results when

learning with hypertext, whereas learners with sequential learning style

should profit from a structural aid in form of a suggested path through the

document. In a learning experiment the influence of learning style (global

versus sequential) and an additional suggested path through the document on

learning achievement with hypertext was empirically tested. The main result

was that sequential learners showed poorer results when learning without

suggested path, global learners achieved the same results in both text condi-

tions. When learning with a suggested path, both learning styles achieved

equal results. We conclude that students with sequential learning style are

at no disadvantage when learning with hypertext as long as they can rely

on an additional path.

USING HYPERTEXT FOR LEARNING

Even before hypertext was realized, visionaries like Vanevar Bush (1945) had

the idea of linking information in non-linear fashion to provide new possibilities

for the presentation of knowledge. In contrast to traditional written media like

books, in which the chapters and information are presented in fixed sequence,

hypertexts offer many different methods of presenting and assimilating infor-

mation. Instead of a linear sequence the reader gets a linked, non-linear organi-

zation of knowledge. Single information units or knots are connected through

79

� 2005, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

links in many different ways (e.g., hierarchically). One does not “read” this

document, one navigates through it.

These new possibilities for organizing information have been and are still being

used for creating learning environments. Different forms of computer-based

learning have been developed and used. Hypertext differs from other systems, like

CAI (Computer Aided Instruction) or CAL (Computer Assisted Learning), in that

hypertext is not directive but normally leaves the control to the user (Gall &

Hannafin, 1994). In a hypertext environment, the learner is able to decide which

information he/she wants to get next. So the user can find his/her individual

path through the document, and the program does not lead him/her in a certain

direction or to a certain goal.

Many authors think that hypertext provides advantages for the construction of

learning environments, such as the possibility of integrating other media or linking

different resources. Another argument in favor of hypertext which is frequently

quoted (Freisler, 1994; Kuhlen, 1991; Schulmeister, 1997) is that the net-like

structure of knowledge in hypertext corresponds to the net-like organization

of human brains. This comparison has not been proven in experiments (see

Gerdes, 1997).

The disadvantages of hypertext have also been reported. Problems like being

“lost in hyperspace,” or cognitive overhead (acquiring information and taking

navigation decisions at the same time) (Conklin, 1987) must be considered. In

comparison to traditional linear text, hypertext often proves disadvantageous in

learning experiments (Britt, Rouet, & Perfetti, 1996). But whether this is because

people cannot learn as well with net-like organized information, or because

hypermedia literacy still is too low (Jonassen & Grabinger, 1990) cannot be

answered clearly at the moment. The problem with most of these experiments

is that linear texts, which are meant to be read in a linear fashion, are converted

into hypertext. This of course can lead to problems in understanding.

The real potential of hypertext, however, lies in its flexibility of knowledge

presentation and adaptability for different learners. Matching of individual learn-

ing preferences and form of knowledge presentation has been found to facilitate

learning (Graff, 2003; Pask, 1988). By using hypertext to design instructional

material, individual differences in learning can be addressed. Considering these

individual differences, it is important to investigate how different structures and

organization of information can contribute to improve learning (Bajraktarevic,

Hall, & Fullick, 2003).

HYPERTEXT AND LEARNING STYLES

Learning styles can be described as the habitual use of a set of similar strat-

egies. Thus they indicate a learner’s learning behavior, which is more or less

stable (Ramsden, 1988). Learning styles are not fixed characteristic features of

a person’s personality, but an orientation to learning that gains certain stability.

80 / DÜNSER AND JIRASKO

Different theories and models of learning styles and learning strategies have

been discussed and examined in the context of learning with hypertext. In some

studies, Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (see Kolb, 1984) which distinguishes

between “Divergers,” “Assimilators,” “Convergers,” and “Accommodators”

was used to measure individual differences (e.g., Kraus, Reed, & Fitzgerald,

2001; Melara, 1996; Reed, Oughton, & John, 1998). Beishuizen and colleagues

(Beishuizen, Stoutjesdijk, & van Putten, 1994; Beishuizen, Stoutjesdijk, &

Zantnig, 1996) used the “Dutch Inventory of Learning Styles” (ILS) (see Vermunt

& van Rijswijk, 1988) which measures deep and surface processing to assess

learning style. These studies were designed as hypertext learning experiments

or studied differences in navigation or searching tasks. Most of them did not

show clear effects with respect to differences in learning achievement or navi-

gational behavior.

In some hypertext studies cognitive style (field dependence vs. field inde-

pendence) was additionally assessed (e.g., Federico, 2000; Reed, Oughton,

Ayersman, Ervin, & Giessler, 2000) or was the main focus of interest (Lin &

Davison-Shivers, 1996; Liu & Reed, 1995). Only in some studies, effects of

cognitive style were found. Lin and Davison-Shivers (1996), for example, showed

that field-independent subjects achieved better results in a hypertext learning

experiment.

The way that hypertext documents can be studied suggests other sources

of individual differences and especially learning styles. Traditional learning

materials are normally read and studied linearly in a given sequence. Hypertext,

on the contrary, can be read in many different ways and sequences. Therefore

the differentiation between global and sequential learners seems especially

relevant in this context.

Riding and Grimley (1999) presented a model that differs between wholists

and analytics, showing that analytics did better on traditional material than multi-

media. Ford and Chen (2000) found no significant correlation between these

cognitive styles and learning outcomes with hypertext. However this differen-

tiation following the Riding paradigm seems rather to be linked to field depen-

dence vs. field independence than to learning styles in particular as the way it

is assessed (by Riding’s Cognitive Style Analysis) is very similar to Witkin’s

Group Embedded Figures Test (Witkin, 1991)

Felder’s (1993, 1996) model of global vs. sequential learning style is based on

research by Pask (1976, 1988), who termed these learners holists and serialists.

Learners with sequential learning style like to learn step by step and prefer linear

and logic structure. Learners with global learning style do not necessarily follow

the given sequence, jump between passages, and try to identify the general

perspective from the beginning on. Using Felder and Silverman’s “Index of

Learning Styles” (Felder, 1996), Bajraktarevic, Hall, and Fullick (2003) found

that students achieved higher scores when they studied with a hypertext struc-

ture that matched their learning style. The matching hypertext for global learners

HYPERTEXT FORMS AND LEARNING STYLE / 81

included different elements such as diagrams, tables of contents, overviews,

etc., the one for the sequential learners consisted of text-only pages with

“forward” and “back” buttons.

RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

In the present study, we examined the effect of structural aid on learning

achievement of students with global and sequential learning styles. We wanted

to alter the stimulus material as little as possible in order to maintain compara-

bility and not to transform hypertext to a strictly linear format. It seems likely

that sequential learners would have difficulties when learning with hypertexts

with a lack of linear structure. With a structural aid, such as an additional

suggested path through the document, these problems should diminish. Global

learners, in contrast, should profit from the non-linear format. They can navigate

through the document as they want and do not have to turn one page after the

other. An additional path through the document should not help global learners

to achieve better learning results.

The following hypotheses were tested.

1. Students with global learning style show better learning results when

learning with hypertext.

2. Students learning with a hypertext with an additional linear path through the

document achieve better learning results when learning with hypertext.

3. Especially students with sequential learning style achieve better learning

results when an additional linear path through the document is available.

Interactions between prior knowledge, hypertext form, and achievement should

also be examined. Knowledge of the subject is important to get oriented in

hypertexts and to make navigation decisions (Gall & Hannafin, 1994; Tergan,

1997). Furthermore, studies indicate that students with little prior knowledge

can profit from linear structures (see Gerdes, 1997). These linear structures

should help them to build up a coherent understanding of the subject. So we

additionally investigated whether additional aid (path through the document)

leads to better learning results in participants with low prior knowledge.

METHODS

Development of a Learning Style Questionnaire

First of all, a questionnaire to distinguish global from sequential learners was

constructed, since none existed in German. Items from the scale “sequential vs.

global understanding” from Felder and Silverman’s “Index of Learning Styles”

(Felder, 1996) were translated and rephrased. As some items could not be properly


translated, and in order to increase the focus on global vs. sequential learning style,

self-constructed items were added. Here are two sample items:

Global learning style: “When learning with a textbook, I do not necessarily

stick to the given chapter sequence.”

Sequential learning style: “When I am working on a problem, I prefer to

solve it step by step.”

This questionnaire was pre-tested on a sample of 77 students. The analysis

showed that global and sequential learning style are opposite poles of one

single factor. So we were able to construct a questionnaire (Dünser & Jirasko,

2000) that distinguishes between global versus sequential learning style. After

selection of items the resulting 14-item questionnaire had a Cronbach’s alpha

of � = .65, which is at the lower limit of satisfaction.

Hypertext Learning Experiment

With this experiment, we examined whether students with global learning

style and students with sequential learning style showed different learning

achievements when learning with hypertext, and if any influence of a structural

aid (additional linear path through the text) could be observed.

Materials

The Learning Text—The hypertext used for the experiment was constructed

with HTML (Hypertext markup language). This form of hypertext was used

because it is one of the most common forms of hypertext (e.g., on the WWW)

and most people are familiar with it. In other words, sufficient hypermedia

literacy could be expected.

The hypertext document dealt with the topic “hypertext” and with permission

from the author Stefan Münz, the text had been adapted for the experiment. The

original document (Münz, 1997) contained an additional path through the text.

Participants could follow this path by clicking on an arrow pointing to the right at

the bottom of each page to continue. There was also an arrow pointing to the left

hand side to go back (this was no history-back, as offered by the browser, but could

be used to go back in the path). This suggested path was not meant as a logically

linear path,1 but a suggestion, as the author called it. So it cannot be equated with

“turning the pages,” but must be seen as an additional aid for navigation and

orientation. Two identical forms of the text were created, where one contained this

path, in the other it was removed.


1 A logically linear path is not possible in a real hypertext document, where each knot has to be

an information unit in itself (Kuhlen, 1991).

Questionnaires

In addition to the learning style questionnaire, other questionnaires were

developed for the learning experiment. Thirty multiple-choice questions on

hypertext were designed to measure the knowledge acquired from the text. The

participants were presented with these questions before and after the learning

phase in order to measure prior knowledge of the topic and learning effects.

To investigate depth of processing, a mix of questions on facts (e.g., “Which

term is used to describe an information-unit?”) and questions that measured

understanding/comprehension (see Bloom, 1956) (e.g., “What is the fundamental

difference between traditional text and hypertext?”) were presented. Whereas

the questions on facts could be answered by only reading the text, the questions

on understanding could only be answered after having understood certain

concepts and connected different ideas. With respect to prior knowledge, we

assumed that the subjects knew rather little about the topic.

Additional variables collected were demographical data (age, sex, subject

and duration of studies), and questions on experience with and attitude toward

learning with hypertext and computers. After the learning phase, the students

answered questions on how they liked learning with this medium and whether

they had experienced any problems.

Subjects

Eighty-six Viennese university students took part in the experiment, 63 of

them studying psychology, 7 technical sciences, and 16 social sciences. All

participants were Caucasian which is typical for the Austrian student population.

Thirty-four students were male and 52 female, with an average age of 26 years

(SD = 5.25). Most of the students participated on a voluntary basis, and some did

as part of a university class.

Design

The experiment took place in group sessions in a computer classroom at the

University of Vienna. Group size for a session was limited to a maximum of 20

people, as 20 computers were available in the classroom. Nine of the recruited

students could not take part in the experiment in the computer classroom because

of their personal schedule, so they participated via Internet. This was possible

because all the materials were also available online and the instructions could

be retrieved online. After a review of the data, all the participants could be

included in the analysis.

In the first questionnaire the students were presented with questions on

learning style and demographical data. The second questionnaire consisted

of questions on experience with and attitude toward learning with hypertext

and the knowledge questions. Afterwards the subjects were randomly assigned


to one of the hypertext forms. The maximum duration of the learning

phase was limited to one hour. After this phase the knowledge questions,

the questionnaire on learning style, and the additional questions were pre-

sented again.

Results

Forty-two students (48.8%) learned with the hypertext with the additional path

and 44 (51.2%) with the hypertext without path. The distinction between the two

learning styles was made by a median split. This resulted in 46 persons (53.5%)

with global learning style and 40 (46.5%) with sequential learning style. The

combination of the two hypertext forms and the learning styles produces four

condition groups with almost the same number of students.

The duration of the whole experiment was one hour and 23 minutes on

average, and the learning phase took 47 minutes on average. The time spent

for learning showed no significant differences in the four treatment groups

F(1, 81) = 0.97, p = .33.

We tested the hypotheses using a three factorial analysis of variance with one

repeated-measures factor and two between-groups factors. The repeated-measures

factor was knowledge before and after the learning phase, the between-subject

factors were hypertext form and learning style. The increase in knowledge

was significant F(1, 82) = 528.14, p < .01. On average, the students were able to

answer 10 questions more after the learning (before learning phase M = 8.34,

after learning phase M = 18.12; out of 30 questions). Regarding hypertext form,

F(1, 82) = 0.40, p = .53, and learning style, F(1, 82) = 0.16, p = .69, no significant

differences could be observed. Therefore the statistical results indicate no support

for hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2.

There was, however, an interaction between the three factors achievement,

hypertext form, and learning style F(1, 82) = 4.61, p = .04 (see Figure 1).

Contrasts revealed that sequential learners without path showed a smaller gain

in knowledge than the other groups t(82) = 1.77, p = .04. Thus students with

a sequential learning style achieved better results in the hypertext learning

experiment when they had an additional path at hand. The absence or presence

of this additional path, however, did not have any influence on the learning

achievement of global learners. This indicates support for hypothesis 3.

These results show that neither hypertext form nor individual learning

style lead to different learning results on their own, but there is an interaction

between these variables in their effect on learning achievement. Sequential

learners learned significantly less when no additional path through the hypertext

document was provided.

As described above, the questionnaire for the knowledge test contained

questions on facts and on understanding. An ANOVA with fact knowledge

before and after as repeated-measures variable and hypertext form and learning


style as between subject factors showed only a significant increase in knowledge,

F(1, 82) = 442.38, p < .01. The same analysis with understanding-scores again

showed significant results in the increase of knowledge, F(1, 82) = 264.29, p < .01,

but also showed an interaction between all three factors: achievement, hypertext

form, and learning style, F(1, 82) = 5.84, p = .02. Thus sequential learners gained a

better understanding but not more fact-knowledge when they could learn with the

additional path, t(82) = 1.77, p = .04. Students with global learning style did not

show any differences in the two hypertext conditions. This lead to the conclusion

that students with sequential learning style depend on structural aid especially


Figure 1. Differences between knowledge-scores before and afterlearning with the hypertext (means � 1,96 SE).

when understanding is required. For learning facts, the additional path does not

lead to better learning achievement.

In a further step we examined the interaction between prior knowledge,

hypertext form, and achievement. The groups for prior knowledge (high versus

low) were divided by median of the pretest knowledge score (MD = 8.4). An

ANOVA with knowledge before and after as repeated-measures variable and

prior knowledge and hypertext form as between subject factors was executed.

No interaction between prior knowledge, hypertext form, and achievement could

be observed.

The analyses of the additional questions showed that most of the students

enjoyed learning with hypertext, but the majority preferred learning with a

book to learning with hypertext. A significant difference could be observed

in the self-rated knowledge about hypertext before and after the experiment,

t(84) = –9.05, p < .01. The students felt they had learned something after the

experiment. The self-rated knowledge after the learning phase was significantly

correlated (r = .50, p < .01) with their judgment of how well they had done in

the knowledge questions.

About half of the participants reported various problems when learning with

the hypertext. However, this question was not correlated with learning achieve-

ment (r = –.03, p = .82). The students mentioned the following problems: learning

from a screen, concentration, the representation of information in hypertexts,

and gaining an overview.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this experiment we found that individual differences in learning and the

presence or absence of structural aids in hypertexts have interactive effects on

learning achievement. Learning style and an additional path in the document do

not have a global influence on how much students can learn from hypertext.

However, students with a sequential learning style show better learning results

with the hypertext form that contains structural aid. Thus students who normally

read and learn step by step, and like logically structured information, can profit

from hypertext better when an additional path through the document is offered.

This path does not have any influence on the achievement of students with global

learning style.

The advantage of the additional path for students with a sequential learning style

can be observed in their understanding of the topic. With respect to knowledge of

facts, this interaction is not significant. We believe that students with a sequential

learning style depend on linear structures to build up their understanding of a

subject. When they do not find this structural aid they can learn the facts, but

seem to have difficulty in understanding the information. Gerdes (1997, p. 77)


proposed, that linearly structured information helps learners with little previous

knowledge in the process of understanding (see also Gall & Hannafin, 1994;

Tergan, 1997). In this experiment, we did not find this for students with little

prior knowledge, but for sequential learners.

It is often argued that additional aids and structures in hypertexts can

improve learning and support learners with different preferences (see Astleitner,

1997; Ford & Chen, 2000; Sadler-Smith & Smith, 2004; Schroeder & Grabowski,

1995). The findings of this study can be an argument for creating hyper-

medial learning environments with additional navigational aids like a sug-

gested path. Using such aids, hypertexts can be constructed to serve students

with different learning preferences. With a path, which does not diminish the

achievement of global learners, the disadvantages of sequential learners could

be leveled out.

Teaching is much more efficient when it corresponds to the students preferred

learning strategies (Pask, 1976). Studies have shown (Bajraktarevic et al., 2003;

Graff, 2003) that learning results were better when hypertext structure and

learning preferences were matched. As hypertexts provide much flexibility in

information presentation and normally can be read in different ways, there is a

big potential in this medium. Regarding the improvement of learning Marton

(1988) wrote: “We should make up our minds about what kind of learning

we value and then build an educational system that works toward that goal” (p. 78).

In Felder’s (1993) opinion, efficient teaching must address each pole of each

learning-style dimension. So teaching materials could be improved by integration

of different aspects that support students with individual preferences. This requires

students to realize their own learning preferences and to be able to choose the

learning environment that best suits them, which Biggs (1988) described as

“metalearning.”

According to Ramsden (1988), the possibility to choose the learning environ-

ment can also be positive for students’ motivation for and interest in learn-

ing. Additional teaching and navigation aids do not have to be useful to all

students in the same way (Schroeder & Grabowski, 1995), but can be very

useful for some.

These suggestions for the design of instructional material become increasingly

relevant, as more of these materials are developed using hypertext. In times

where concepts such as e-learning are getting more important and more fre-

quently used, these issues have to be addressed. Because of the sample

characteristics, the findings of this study are somewhat limited to conclusions

in the field of higher education and for students with little prior knowledge of

the subject. To investigate their generality in a broader population, studies using

other subjects seem desirable.

Further studies should investigate students’ navigational behavior in corre-

spondence to their learning styles and preferences. It would be interesting to


study, for example, whether students with sequential learning styles really produce

more linear navigation patterns when navigating through a hypertext.

REFERENCES

Astleitner, H. (1997). Effects of external learning aids on learning with ill-structured

hypertext. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 1-18.

Bajraktarevic, N., Hall, W., & Fullick, P. (2003). Incorporating learning styles in hyper-

media environment: Empirical evaluation. Proceedings AH2003: Workshop on

Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems, pp. 41-52.

Beishuizen, J., Stoutjesdijk, E., & van Putten, K. (1994). Studying textbooks: Effect

of learning styles, study task, and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 4, 151-174.

Beishuizen, J., Stoutjesdijk, E., & Zantnig, A. (1996). Using hypertext for studying

and information search. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(4), 289-316.

Biggs, J. (1988). Approaches to learning and to essay writing. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.),

Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 185-228). New York: Plenum Press.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of

educational goals: Handbook I, Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans,

Green.

Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Perfetti, D. A. (1996). Using hypertext to study and reason

about historical evidence. In J.-F. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. Dillon, & Spiro, R. (Eds.),

Hypertext and cognition (pp. 43-72). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 1, 101-103. [available: 17.11.1998.

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm].

Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. IEEE Computer, 20(9),

17-41.2

Dünser, A., & Jirasko, M. (2000). Fragebogen zur Erfassung der Lernstile sequentiell vs.

global [Questionnaire for the assessment of sequential vs. global learning styles].

Wien: Institut für Psychologie der Universität Wien.

Federico, P. (2000). Learning styles and student attitudes toward various aspects of

network-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 359-379.

Felder, R. M. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college

science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4), 286-290.

Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of style. ASEE Prism, 6(4), 18-23.

Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation and

learning: An empirical study. Journal-of-Educational-Multimedia-and-Hypermedia,

9(4), 281-311.

Freisler, S. (1994). Hypertext: Eine Begriffsbestimmung [Hypertext: A definition].

Deutsche Sprache, 1, 19-50.

Gall, J. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1994). A framework for the study of hypertext. Instructional

Science, 22, 209-232.

Gerdes, H. (1997). Lernen mit Text und Hypertext [Learning with text and hypertext]. Pabst

Science Publishers, Aktuelle Psychologische Forschung Band 18. Wien: Lengerich.

Graff, M. (2003). Assessing learning from Hypertext: An individual differences per-

spective. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(4), 425-438.


Jonassen, D. H. & Grabinger, R. S. (1990). Problems and issues in designing hypertext/

hypermedia for learning. In K. D. Jonassen & H. Mandl (Eds.), Designing hypermedia

for learning (pp. 3-25). Berlin: Springer.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Kraus, L.A., Reed, W. M., & Fitzgerald G. E. (2001). The effects of learning style

and hypermedia prior experience on behavioural disorders knowledge and time on

task: A case-based hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 17,

125-140.

Kuhlen, R. (1991). Hypertext: Ein nicht lineares medium zwischen buch und wissensbank

[Hypertext: A non-linear medium between book and knowledgebase]. Berlin: Springer.

Lin, C.-L., & Davison-Shivers, G. V. (1996). Effects of linking structure and cognitive

style and students performance and attitude in a computer-based hypertext environ-

ment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(4), 317-329.

Liu, M., & Reed, W. M. (1995). The effect of hypermedia assisted instruction on second

language learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(2), 159-175.

Marton, F. (1988). Describing and improving learning. In R. R. Schmeck, (Ed.), Learning

strategies and learning styles (pp. 53-82). New York: Plenum Press.

Melara, G. E. (1996). Investigating learning styles on different hypertext environments:

Hierarchical-like and network-like. Journal of Educational Computing Research,

14(4), 313-328.

Münz, S. (1997). Hypertext. [available: 2.9.1999.

http://download.teamone.de/download/index.htm

Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 46, 128-148.

Pask, G. (1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies, and conceptual or learning style.

In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 83-100). New

York: Plenum Press.

Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy: Situational influences on learning. In R. R.

Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 159-184). New York:

Plenum Press.

Reed, W. M., Oughton, M., Ayersman, D. J., Ervin, J. R., & Giessler, S. F. (2000).

Computer experience, learning style, and hypermedia navigation. Computers in Human

Behavior, 16, 609-628.

Reed, W. M., Oughton, J. M., & John, M. (1998). The effects of hypermedia knowledge

and learning style on the construction of group concept maps. Computers in Human

Behavior, 14(1), 1-22.

Riding, R., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style, gender and learning from multi-media

materials in 11-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1),

43-56.

Sadler-Smith, E., & Smith, P. (2004). Strategies for accommodating individuals’ styles

and preferences in flexible learning programmes. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 35(4), 395-412.

Schroeder, E. E., & Grabowski, B. L. (1995). Patterns of exploration and learning with

hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(4), 313-335.

Schulmeister, R. (1997). Grundlagen hypermedialer lernsysteme: Theorie-didaktik-design

[Basics of hypermedia-based learning-systems; Theory-didactic-design] (2nd ed.).

München: Oldenbourg Verlag.


Tergan, S.-O. (1997). Hypertext und hypermedia: Konzeption, Lernmöglichkeiten,

lernprobleme. In L. P. Issing & P. Klimsa (Eds.), Information und lernen mit multi-

media [Information and learning with multimedia] (2nd ed., pp. 123-137). Weinheim:

Belz.

Vermunt, J. D. H. M., & van Rijswijk, F. A. W. M. (1988). Analysis and development

of students’ skill in self regulated learning. Higher Education, 17, 647-682.

Witkin, H. A. (1991) . Embedded figures test. Children ‘s embedded figures test, group

embedded figures test. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Direct reprint requests to:

Dr. Andreas Dünser

Department of Psychology

University of Vienna, Austria

Liebiggasse 5

A-1010 Vienna, Austria

e-mail: [email protected]


Documents

INTERACTION OF HYPERTEXT FORMS AND GLOBAL VERSUS SEQUENTIAL LEARNING STYLES