Product Development

We developed the Reading Classroom Explorer, a hypermedia learning environment, for use in teacher education. Users can explore six classrooms in which exemplary teachers are teaching reading to diverse students. The following sections describe its development.

Video Clips

We used six videotapes, developed in the early 1990s, as the source of our video footage of reading instruction in classrooms. Portions (clips ranging from 30 to 120 seconds in length) of the videos were digitized into QuickTime videos. We descriptively named each video clip (with tags such as "Reading Materials, Danville"), categorized it into as many themes as appropriate (see description of preselected searches in the section "The Investigate Screen" below), and brainstormed a list of key words such as "parent involvement" or "engagement" to describe the content of the clips.

Creating the user interface. Reading Explorer has two main screens in its user interface, the Search Screen and the Investigate Screen. The Search Screen (Figure 1) contains search mechanisms that allow users to search by schools, themes, and key words.

(960 K)

The Search Screen. Users may build personal searches by inputting search words. The program checks for matches with the embedded, but unseen, key word list and/or words in the transcripts. These three search mechanisms may be used in any combination, based on the required specificity of the user's search interest. For example, one user might want to see all Harlem and Danville clips, while a second might want to search ALL SCHOOLS for the READING ENVIRONMENT clips that contain the key word LIBRARY, and a third might want to see any clip dealing with SMALL GROUP, a theme in our preselected searches, OR clips dealing with COOPERATIVE LEARNING, a key word. The search mechanism uses Boolean operators (AND and OR) to control searches. Once the parameters of the search are set, users click the "Search" button, and the program provides a list of matches on the right side of the screen. Once a clip name is clicked, the program moves the user to the Investigate Screen.

The Investigate Screen. The Investigate Screen (Figure 2) incorporates many features that, as explained by Spiro and Jehng (1990), provide "expert guidance and commentary to help the learner to derive maximum benefit from his or her explorations." Once a clip name has been clicked, the video appears in the upper left corner of the Investigate Screen and automatically starts playing. The user controls the play and the sound of the video. The clip's transcript appears to the right of the video. Above the current clip, the "Recent Clips" pop-up menu tracks the history (in order) of viewed video clips during a session. By choosing one of the recent clips listed, the program will recall and display the video clip and other relevant information.

Every video clip, depending on the content, has been tagged with at least one broad theme (usually several) in our list of "Preselected Searches." For example, the clip called "Reading Materials, Danville" presents innovative ideas about reading materials while the teacher leads a small group discussion. Thus, this clip is tagged with both the "Reading Materials" and "Small Group Reading" themes. On the Investigate Screen, the two fields "Questions" and "Additional Information" are theme sensitive; that is, the information displayed in these fields depends on the theme that was responsible for the clip's appearance in the list generated by the parameters of the search. Therefore, just under the displayed clip, the "Switch Theme" pop-up menu allows the user to see and switch between the clip's theme(s). When the user clicks "Switch Theme," the Question and Additional Information section's contents change.

The Question field presents questions about the content of the video clip. Some include the responses of the teacher featured in the clip. Other questions are designed more to stimulate the user's thinking than to query specific information. To obtain more information about a topic presented in a clip, the Additional Information field displays citations from articles and books within the practitioner and research literature.

A significant portion of the Investigate Screen is occupied by the users' notebook field. Users may type text (notes, comments, or questions) into the notebook. They also can insert the current clip's name with a button click. Users may not only organize ideas and comments around a clip's name but also reboot the clip by clicking on the clip name. The notebook contents is printable and saved on a user's Reading Classroom Explorer disk, facilitating the insertion of a user's notebook contents into the program during another session. Further development of Explorer will facilitate users' ability to make their notebooks, along with inserted clips, available to peers in a public forum.

A "Quit" button appears on each screen, which shuts down the program and saves the notebook contents onto the user's disk. The "Search" button on the Investigate Screen, when clicked, moves the user to the Search Screen.

See Appendix 2 for updated Explorer screens.

Return to Contents

Method

Participants

To obtain volunteers for our phase 1 pilot, we introduced Reading Classroom Explorer to participating teacher education classes at a large midwestern United States university. After a short demonstration, students were invited to use the program. Those who expressed a desire to learn more about the program and its content were asked to contact us. The final group of participants included two single gender pairs (one female and one male) and five individual participants (two males and three females).

Procedures

The basic research strategy was to invite the participants to navigate their way through the program and to think aloud about both the navigation process and the content they encountered. Toward the end of the sessions, which lasted between one and two hours, they responded to a set of interview questions that we had prepared, focusing on both the navigation process and the content of the clips.

Because the think-aloud protocol was so central to the quality of our data, participants began their session by watching a short video exemplifying the talk-aloud method. We used computer-related tasks such as spell checking and scanning photos. In this way, we demonstrated the method without suggesting strategies for using the intended target of research, the Explorer. We had two demonstration videos: one for participants working alone and one for participants working as a pair.

---

Single Participants

Video Option	Sound Option
(6.7 MB)	(1.3 MB)

---

Pair Participants

Video Option	Sound Option
(10 MB)	(1.9 MB)

---

Consistent with this research tool, participants were asked to verbalize their thoughts and reactions while navigating through the program (Afflerbach & Johnston, 1986; van Someren, Barnard, & Sandberg, 1994).

After participants expressed clarity about the nature of the think-aloud process, we reacquainted them with Reading Classroom Explorer, ensuring that the participants understood the major features and functions of the program. Two basic prompts were used to structure their navigation through the program. The first prompt asked them to come to an informed opinion about small group instruction (in relation to the debate over whole-class versus small-group instruction) by consulting clips in this program. After the participants spent about 15 minutes of viewing and thinking aloud, we asked them to tell us their opinion. Immediately following, we gave them the second prompt; we invited them to explore any issue they found interesting. After they had explored (and talked aloud) about a second issue, we moved to a debriefing session in which we asked the participants a set of prepared interview questions related to their use of the program during the exploratory sessions as well as questions relating to participants' views of the program in more general terms. During this time, the participants were also encouraged to ask questions to clarify their thinking about the program and its features.

Data Collection and Analysis

Each session was recorded on both video- and audiotape for later mapping, analysis, and, where appropriate, transcription. In our first pass through the tapes, we created a data "map" by writing a short descriptive summary of each major chunk: videotaped navigation and/or response to interview questions. These maps were used to guide subsequent searches for evidence to evaluate emerging hypotheses and claims about the participants' responses to the hypermedia environment. One or another of the authors took the lead in developing interpretations of the responses of each individual or pair. These developing interpretations were brought to a staff meeting at which the three of us challenged, corroborated, extended, or refined the claims presented. These conversations usually triggered a revisit of the maps and data tapes for further analysis and interpretation.

As this process progressed, we found ourselves using metaphors (for example, "She's on a Sunday bicycle ride") to characterize the navigational journey of each individual or pair. As our analysis progressed, we decided to make these metaphors more prominent in our analysis. We brought them to our group meetings for scrutiny and refinement, and often decided that yet another pass through the maps and tapes was required before we could settle on a particular metaphor or interpretation. We continued this process iteratively until we were collectively satisfied that the current metaphors and interpretations represented the best account we could offer of the data. Common ethnographic tools, such as constant comparative analysis, triangulation, and negative case analysis were used throughout this iterative process. Again, our goal was to use the data from these tapes to begin documenting students' (1) use of the program, (2) views of the effectiveness of using the program collaboratively versus individually, (3) attitudes and feelings about the program, and (4) views of the advantages and disadvantages of this instructional medium.

Return to Contents

Results

In conceptualizing and developing Reading Classroom Explorer, we had specific ideas of how students and instructors might use such a program. In our preliminary research and analysis of the data, we found a diversity of responses to the technology, both in the way users navigated through the program as well as in their views of its possibilities as a learning environment. As suggested in our discussion of methods, a collection of metaphors describing participants' conceptions of the learning environment and navigational stances emerged from the collected data during research staff meetings. Here, we have provided a collection of the most provocative cases and metaphors.

Case 1, Diane: "The Construction Zone" and "Club Med"

Diane used Reading Classroom Explorer as a construction zone through which she built her own concept of what it meant to teach and be a teacher. She approached the material housed within Explorer analytically as she stated,

(384 K)

"I think that it's, um, you have to look at it all. You're not feeling lost, but it is, you have to have a brain. This isn't, you know, showing you how to do something; you have to use your head and put the information you see together in a way that helps you."

To help her construct meaning, a hierarchy of useful types of information about teaching became evident. In Diane's investigations, her reactions to the video clips and her comments about valuable features illustrate this hierarchy. The clips containing examples of children reading in small or large groups were not that significant for Diane. She responded to these clips with simple iterations such as "That's cute," or "That's funny."

---

Viewed Clip	Diane's Response
(3.3 MB)	(990 K)

---

And she explicitly stated her desire for more background information, perhaps from the teacher. In some cases, she did find clips that contained the desired teacher perspective, as in the following example:

---

Viewed Clip	Diane's Response
(2.9 MB)	(830 K)

---

Diane made a concerted effort to choose clips that she thought would contain the teacher perspective. At one moment of clip choice, she explained her rationale:

(512 K)

I'm just trying to decide like what one, like, which one maybe tries to involve the teacher a little bit.... I'd kind of like to get her [teacher] perspective on it.

Upon viewing such clips, Diane's comments expand analytically and conceptually. She responded:

(830 K)

I have another class and it's not even an education class but it's about a class about teaching science. And he, the teacher, was talking about that, how it's really silly to separate all the subjects into discrete areas just because so many things can be tied together, and it makes your classroom so much more productive and it seems like, it seems a lot more meaningful to have a theme and work around it rather than like having math time, science time, spelling time because a lot of things can be built into different activities.

With more teacher context, Diane was able to connect her preservice education classes, her experience with children and schools, and the clips she viewed.

Diane identified Reading Classroom Explorer as an excellent source for contrast and analysis during the preservice educative process. She explained the benefit:

(1.3 MB)

Well, I think that going into your CT's [collaborating teacher] classroom, a lot of people are under the bad impression that, like, they are suppose to teach you how to be a teacher.... You have to be able analyze what they do and you know, it's not like an apprentice...I think that with, you know, using a program like this you can see there are other ways of doing something without going out into another classroom and without having to change classes all the time, and that would even give you something to refer to, to compare your CT to, and you can do with that information what you want but it's a source of information.

At the same time that she professed this benefit of the program, she also warned against using it too early, for she believed that the less experienced preservice teachers would not be analytical, but rather search for answers or the "rules" of teaching. She explained:

(770 K)

I'm not so sure you'd want to introduce it too soon into that [in the beginning teacher education courses] because I remember in my first TE class everything I heard about, like, trying to teach I'd try to write down like there was some kind of rule about how you'd go in and conduct your class.

The phenomena that Diane explains is similar to the manner in which Kevin, another individual participant, approached the program as a "Teaching Machine" (see the next case).

Diane navigated through the program as if she were trying to decide how to choose activities for the day at a resort; hence the Club Med metaphor. Like those who practice a known sport, Diane used the media to find support for her own notion of small-group reading instruction. She explains, strengthens, and supports her position in response to video evidence contained in Explorer.

(1 MB)

I think [students] should be free to talk about it [interesting books] and discuss it and even read to each other but I don't know as though I approve of necessarily small-group reading...like the red group and the blue group and everyone knows who is the better readers. I think a lot if you raise your expectations ...like that teacher who uses magazines.

Like a Club Med visitor who chooses to learn a new activity, Diane also viewed Explorer as a medium to help expand her teaching repertoire. For example, she decided to investigate classroom rules as her free choice issue because she felt that she was having difficulty identifying them through classroom observations in her field experience:

(1.8 MB)

Let's look at some rules here. This looks like it's going to be helpful...I don't think I've ever heard anybody, like actually state what the rules are when you are doing an activity like that...even in like my kindergarten class, I'm sure there are rules, but I was never there for that and it's kind of nice to see the kind of groundwork they laid down before they do an activity like that....

Return to Contents

Case 2, Kevin: "The Teaching Machine" and "AAA Trip-Tik"

An apt contrast to Diane is Kevin, who saw Explorer as a teaching machine. He wanted it to give him the answers or heavily direct his thinking about issues of teaching. Kevin's sole reaction of one of many clips he viewed was,

---

Viewed Clip	Kevin's Response	Transcript
(3.7 MB)	(380 K)	"It's short. I'm always expecting more, like it should be a little longer clip.... It doesn't seem like it's giving me a lot of information."

---

Clearly, Kevin depends heavily on teacher-prompted analysis to provoke his thinking. He explains:

---

Viewed Clip	Kevin's Response	Transcript
(3.3 MB)	(600 K)	"There's no, there's no questions or other information for some of these clips, so I really don't know how to react to, when I see this clip. Like how I'm suppose to integrate it into my thinking or just to react in generally."

---

Similarly, he states that without the teacher perspective and questions,

(250 K)

He has "no clue" of a use for the notebook.

After using the program, Kevin thinks:

(250 K)

It gave nice clips...but really didn't do anything to influence my thinking.

He desires more background information:

(480 K)

I guess an idea or an outline of whole group reading or whole group, whole class instruction on the good points of it and then maybe the bad points of it. What it allows and what it does not allow? And vice versa for small group lessons and small group reading. Just give me background information, I guess.

Kevin is not able to use the media in the program to determine the good points and bad points for himself. He focuses on the program, just as he would on a teacher or a textbook, to dictate the "correct" way to teach instead of using the media to construct his own concept.

We liken Kevin's navigation of the program to driving with the aid of a AAA (American Automotive Association) Trip-Tik, which maps the quickest route between points along the way to a predetermined destination. He wants to find the answers quickly and efficiently. During his investigation, he considered several lists of video-clip matches. In every instance, he either viewed the clips from top to bottom or the clips that best matched by name. Kevin disregarded information that did not absolutely match his search, as illustrated when he ignored the "Related Clips" section, for

(250 K)

[he] wouldn't use those...if they are just kind of...related.

In response to the need for background information, one of us proposed providing access to preceding and following clips. His "efficiency" stance is again clear when he states,

(670 K)

I guess if I was looking at a particular topic, I don't know if it would really, if it would talk about, if that preceding clip would talk about that topic.

He dismissed the idea because these other clips could possibly be off topic and thus reduce his efficiency toward retrieving "just the facts."

Return to Contents

Case 3, Judy and Liz: "Online Library" and "Touring on a Tandem Bicycle"

The learning environment metaphor that came to mind for Judy and Liz was an online library.

(920 K)

This metaphor is borne out in their proposed uses of the media as a presentation tool to show examples (Judy), as an exploration center (Liz), and as a student presentation tool, in which small groups construct arguments organized in the notebook and then shared with the whole group (Judy). Liz identified the features of this program as being useful with her own prospective students, which, by the way, exemplifies our auxiliary purpose for this technology -- to serve as a stepping stone for further technology awareness and use by teachers. Liz felt that experiences with learning environments such as this may aid her in choosing classroom software and technology for her own classroom.

(190 K)

We chose a tandem touring bicycle as the pair's navigational metaphor. While navigating through Explorer, Judy and Liz, like a couple touring on the tandem bicycle, consistently consulted with each other.

Together, they collaborate almost every decision, ranging from simple navigational or featural choices to complex coconstruction of critical analysis of a video teacher's approach. As a pair, they focus on the media and build meaning from the content of the clip, the background knowledge that each brings to the task, and each other's comments:

(1.4 MB)

Judy: We watched that video last week when there were talking, -- Liz: Yeah. Liz: That was, I guess, group discussion, though. And they all discussed, they all spoke at the exact same time. Liz: [unintelligible] I don't know, I think that would drive me nuts... Judy: [reading transcript aloud] "Ok, Umm. During small-group lessons, I often have the children read aloud at the same time, each at their own rate." I don't like that idea because I think that it makes the children who read at a slower rate feel like they're being -- Liz: /I think it's hard too/ Judy: [unintelligible] -- other people that are reading faster or kids will read really fast because they think they are supposed to be reading -- Liz: --'cause there are all different things, aren't they? Different, I mean, like you said, if someone is reading faster, if you are reading faster than me then you'd be way ahead of me... Liz: And then, I don't know, it's almost like starting a song; a person singing a verse and another person starts a verse and then it's like, "OHHH." [unintelligible] [laughter by Judy and Liz] Then, you get a little confused. Judy: This kid looks a little confused [points at a child in the video clip].

Similar to both Diane and Kevin, Judy and Liz found the Question section helpful in their analysis of clips. Judy explains,

(290 K)

"But I think if there wasn't a theme [Question section], it would be harder to kind of get out of what each of the segments is focusing on."

Return to Contents

Case 4, Matt: "1001 Ideas for Teaching Reading" and "Inner-Radar"

Matt sees these clips as idea generators, useful to him as a future teacher in the same way that an "idea" magazine might trigger a new project for a committed do-it-yourself home project addict:

(680 K)

I like how when you guys said, "Take a look at small groups." There's no restraints or anything. Just take a look at it. It's free to explore. You can get ideas from all over the country.... You can just take their ideas and totally change them to fit your own needs or whatever.

Matt felt that many program features also supported idea generation. The clip names lead him from one idea to the next as he explains:

(480 K)

...all of a sudden I've got field trips and newsletters. That makes me think of journalism and class newspaper then go report within the community. And I get great books club...I did that way back when, fourth grade maybe. So I was thinking about that for a while. So, yeah, you get thousands of ideas come rushing at me.

He also uses the "Preselected Search" categories to brainstorm topics to explore. For example, Matt said, "Well, let's take a look at this library [pressing on the Preselected search]," and chooses "Reading Environments" to investigate the effect of ceiling lighting on learning. Although this preselected search does not inform his intended investigation, Matt discovers ideas about field trips, home-school connections, and parent involvement to support reading.

---

Viewed Clip	Matt's Response
(2.4 MB)	(480 K)

---

In formulating his teaching philosophy, Matt relies on research. He explains:

(860 K)

...but there was not very much scientific, like umm, like when I looked up small group, it wasn't like research. It was more like here are some kids reading and I read you this because of that. That's all fine and nice for the teacher explaining why she does it, but it doesn't do much for my, it won't change my opinions because there is no, like, "It's been proven that there's a correlation between you know blank and blank," and I kind of would like to see something like that it if I was gonna, if I was going to try to make my philosophy or try to change my philosophy.

Overall, Matt saw this learning environment as a place to get ideas that correlate with his own teaching philosophy.

It seemed as if Matt navigated using inner-radar, most likely due to his considerable prior computer experience. Experience programming in C++ informed the "And/Or" Boolean choice, the problems with spaces in search fields, and the possibility of case-sensitivity affecting his search. He noted similarities between Explorer and Netscape or WebCrawler in searching, and he critiqued the database, indicating a high level of computer experience,

(350 K)

The database search is really nice how it cross-references and finds all this stuff...as computer programs go that's really nice and I think it's really wonderful.

Return to Contents

Cross Case Observations

Looking across these four cases, some observations and some (tentative) conclusions are warranted at this early stage in our work. Perhaps the most striking commonality in the responses was their positive disposition toward Explorer as a tool that they could use on their own to explore issues and questions that would arise in their teaching. The idea of having all of these experienced teachers as "online" consultants whose brain they could pick on very, very specific questions was quite appealing. Even Kevin, who wanted much more guidance from his teaching machine, could see possibilities for ways in which he might be able to use Explorer.

General Impressions of the Explorer

Diane	Kevin	Judy and Liz	Matt
(350 K)	(512 K)	(1.3 MB)	(1 MB)

A second common response was "amazement." The preservice teachers were amazed that they (and remember that only Matt considered himself a computer buff) could actually negotiate a fairly complex computer program and make it serve their own needs and interests.

Feelings of Amazement

Diane	Kevin	Judy and Liz	Matt
(736 K)	(450 K)	(224 K)	(736 K)

Third, students responded in a variety of ways to the technology as a learning environment, as a body of content to be learned, and as a tool to be mastered. One of the reasons that we found the metaphors so useful is that each seemed so uniquely appropriate for each individual or pair. Following are selected sound clips that illustrate some evidence of why we chose the specific metaphors for each participant.

Metaphors

Diane	Kevin	Judy and Liz	Matt
Construction Zone	Teaching Machine	Online Library	1001 Ideas
(384 K)	(480 K)	(930 K)	(512 K)

We know that as we expand the number of participants in our work, we are likely to find additional exemplars for each of our metaphors, but so far the idiosyncrasy is as characteristic as commonality of response, if not more so. In a sense, Explorer can be viewed as possessing chameleon-like qualities in that it is adaptable to the needs, interests, and capacities of participants who vary dramatically in the backgrounds they bring to the program and the purposes for which they will use it.

The final commonality relates to participants' struggles with certain program features. For example, many found button and pop-up menu names confusing. Others desired some way of indicating which clips they had already viewed. These problems introduced the disparate perspectives of the program developer and the user and supported our view of the importance of incorporating user testing into the program development process. Our participants' responses to such features warrant redesign and perhaps even reconceptualization. Since the time of these interviews, we have addressed the problematic features of the Explorer. See Appendix 1 for the participants' views of the notebook and transcript features and Appendix 2 for the updated program screens.

Return to Contents

Further Research

Even as we write about our phase 1 experiences, we are already engaged in subsequent phases of our work. As we move into more elaborate trials of Explorer, we hope to address a number of questions raised in our analysis of the responses of participants in phase 1. Prior experience, for example, as it played out in the four case studies, surprised us. As we continue to examine the data, we hope to explore the possibility that background experiences, prior knowledge, or even gender-related dispositions contribute to the variation in response. For example,

(864 K)

the male participants, who also were majoring in science, voiced a need for more research data.

Those self-described as computer novices, mainly women in our participant sample,

(832 K)

concentrated on learning the technology rather than exploring the content.

Through their explorations, they grew more comfortable with the technology and felt they could use it on their own, which lended support for our auxiliary goal of having Explorer provide a stepping-stone experience with technology. We need to conduct further analysis and research to determine if there is support for these emerging patterns.

A second issue involves the relationship of Explorer to the video series from which it was adapted. As revealed in their responses, some of the students had actually viewed some of the videos in their entirety. Their ability to make connections between their recollection of the entire video and the particular clips from that tape that appeared in their tailored searches makes us wonder about the role of Explorer in relation to the video tape series: Should Explorer be used in conjunction with videotapes as a medium to allow students to "explore" particular issues AFTER they have a broader and more contextualized sense of what each teacher was up to? OR, can Explorer stand on its own?

Views on Video Versus Hypermedia

Diane	Kevin	Judy and Liz	Matt
(1 MB)	(512 K)	(864 K)	(736 K)

Participants were amazed at the technology but did not find it particularly difficult to use; they found it more efficient than viewing videotapes, felt the video clips provided concrete examples, and gained new perspectives about teaching reading. However, in order to discern novelty effects, we will conduct research in classrooms using Explorer as an integral part of the instruction. In this way, we may ascertain if this is a supportive environment for analysis of the techniques for teaching reading and for further preservice teachers' learning.

Further, we will explore the use of video cases in teacher development. Our hypermedia program is the perfect context in which to extend Copeland and Decker's (1996) finding that individual participants incorporated meaning developed in group discussions of a single video case into their own meaning making three weeks later. Our research may inform questions relating to the role of conversations surrounding the videos, the question of number (many cases versus a single case), the social context in which the environment is traversed (individual versus paired versus group exploration), and the criterion for aggregating and juxtaposing clips (theme versus classroom, for example).

Return to Contents

References

Afflerbach, P., & Johnston, P. (1986). Research methodology on the use of verbal reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 307-322.

Copeland, W.D., & Decker, D.L. (1996). Video cases and the development of meaning making in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(5), 467-481.

Landow, G. (1992). Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Marchionini, G., & Crane, G. (1994). Evaluating hypermedia and learning: Methods and results from the Perseus Project. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(1), 5-34.

Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, R.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992a). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 57-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, R.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992b). Knowledge representation, content specification, and the development of skill in situation-specific knowledge assembly: Some constructivist issues as they relate to cognitive flexibility theory and hypertext. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 121-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Spiro, R., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the linear and nonlinear multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163-205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

van Someren, M.W., Barnard, Y.F., & Sandberg, J.A.C. (1994). The think-aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press Limited.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.

Return to Contents

---

Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted February 1998; links updated July 2000
© 1998-2000 International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232