Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The focus of this study was for students using an extensive hypermedia environment to state how the program's features, tools, or commands reflected four theoretical constructs: 1) semantic networks, 2) concept maps, 3) frames/scripts, and 4) schemata. Two exercises were created: 1) context-weak and 2) context-strong. It was found that, when the context was strong, the students cited more semantic networks and concept maps than when the context was weak. They, however, cited more frames/scripts and schemata when the context was weak than when the context was strong. In addition to viewing the four construct-models individually, the results were interpreted when establishing a linear construct-models group (semantic networks and frames/scripts) and a nonlinear construct-models group (concept maps and schemata). Results were also interpreted when grouping the construct-models as information-structure construct-models (semantic networks and concept maps) and as user-practiced construct-models (frames/scripts and schemata).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reed et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: