Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using schema theory as a framework, we view learning as an active, constructive process. It is affected not only by learners' internal knowledge structures, but by the external constraints of the learning environment as well (Kozma, 1991). This article examines how different internal learner characteristics (e.g., prior knowledge, self efficacy and interest) and different external constraints (e.g., learner control, instructional design and level of control) influence the learning process. Specifically, we address learning from a variety of multimedia environments such as video, hypertexts, kiosks and other hypermedia within a schema theoretic approach that incorporates a constructivist view.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, R.C. and Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension, in P.D. Pearson, ed., Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson-Inman, L. and Horney, M.A. (1993). Profiles of Hypertext Readers: Results of the Electrotext Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia.

  • Armbruster, B.B. (1986). Schema theory and the design of content-area textbooks. Educational Psychologist 21: 253–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior. Psychological Review 84: 191–215.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S.A., Bowdish, B.E. and Lawless, K.A. (1996). Hypermedia navigation: Characterizing the emergent interpretation. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Barab, S.A., Bowdish, B.E., Young, M.F. and Owen, S.V. (in press). Understanding Kiosk navigation: Using log files to capture hypermedia searches. Instructional Science.

  • Barab, S.A., Fagen, B.R., Kulikowich, J.M. and Young, M.F. (1996). Assessing hypertext navigation through Pathfinder: Prospects and limitations. Manuscript under review for publication.

  • Barab, S.A., Young, M.F. and Shaw, R. (1996). Anchors as naturalistic constraints on hypertext navigation. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Binder, C. (1989). Hypertext design issues. Performance Improvement Quarterly 2(3): 16–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowdish, B.E., Barab, S.A. and Lawless, K.A. (October, 1994). The Kiosk Project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, New York.

  • Brown, J.S., Collins, A. and DuGuid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher Jan.-Feb.: 32–42.

  • Bruner, J.S. (1973). Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campizzi, J.A. (1978). Effects of locus of control and provision of overviews in a computer-assisted instruction sequence. AEDS Journal.

  • Carver, S.M., Lehrer, R., Connell, T. and Erickson, J. (1992). Learning by hypermedia design: Issues of assessment and implementation. Educational Psychologist 27: 385–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney, D. (1987). Comprehending non-linear text: The role of discourse cues and reading strategies, in J. Smith and F. Halasz, eds., Hypertext '87 Proceedings (pp. 109–120). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F.I.M. and Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research on Interactions. New York: Irvington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J. and Snow, R.E. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research Interaction. New York: Irvington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, A. (1991). Readers' models of text structure: The case of academic materials. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35: 913–925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernald, P.S., Chiseri, M.J. and Lawson, D.W. (1975). Systematic manipulation of student pacing, the perfection requirement, and contact with a teaching assistant in an introductory psychology course. Teaching of Psychology 2: 147–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fincher-Kiefer, R., Post, T.A., Greene, T.R. and Voss, J.F. (1988). On the role of prior knowledge and task demands in the processing of text. Journal of Memory and Language 27: 416–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, J.F. (1983). Use of computer-assisted instruction in introductory management science. Journal of Experimental Education 52: 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, J.P. (1972). Interactive relationship between inquisitiveness and student control of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 459–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gall, J.E. and Hannafin, M.J. (1994). A framework for the study of hypertext. Instructional Science 22: 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 78(3): 225–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetzfried, L. and Hannafin, M.J. (1985). The effect of the locus of CAI control strategies on the learning of mathematics rules. American Educational Research Journal 22: 273–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabinger, R.S., Dunlap, J.C. and Jonassen, D.H. (1993). Relational links. Performance & Instruction: 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, S.H. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer-assisted learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 2: 54–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J.T. and Dreher, M.J. (1990). Literacy as search: Explorations via computer, in D. Nix and R. Spiro, eds., Cognition, Education, Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M.J. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development 7(3): 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, R.D. and Sullivan, H.J. (1996). Preferences and learner control over amount of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 88: 162–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, E.H., Robson, E.H. and Steward, A.P. (1985). Learner control in computer-assisted learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1: 99–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M.J. and Spiro, R.J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research 12(4): 301–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H. (1986). Hypertext principles for text and courseware design. Educational Psychologist 21(4): 269–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H. and Wang, S. (1993). Acquiring structural knowledge from semantically structured hypertext. Journal of Computer Based Instruction 20(1): 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, W.A. (1972). Learner-controlled computer-assisted instruction. ERIC #ED 072-635.

  • Kozma, R.B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research 6(2): 179–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahey, G.F. (1976). Learner control of lesson strategy: A model for PLATO IV system lessons. ERIC #ED 125-543.

  • Lahey, G.F., Hurlock, R.E. and McCann, P.H. (1973). Post-lesson remediation and student control of branching in computer-based learning. ERIC #ED 083-797.

  • Lawless, K.A. and Kulikowich, J.M. (in press). Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research.

  • Lawless, K.A. and Kulikowich, J.M. (1993, October). Assessment of Students' Navigation and Comprehension of a Hypertext Document. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY.

  • Lawless K.A. and Kulikowich, J.M. (1994, February). Reading Comprehension, Navigation and Hypertext. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Educational Research Association, San Antonio, Texas.

  • Lawless, K.A. and Kulikowich, J.M. (1995, April). Domain Knowledge, Interest, and Hypertext Navigation: A Study of Individual Differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Lepper, M. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. American Psychologist 40: 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E. (1976). Some conditions of meaningful learning for computer programming: Advance organizers and subject control of frame order. Journal of Educational Psychology 68(2): 143–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M.D. (1975). Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions. AV Communications Review 23: 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component display theory, in C.M. Reigeluth, ed., Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M.D. (1984). What is learner control? Instructional Development: The state of the art II. ERIC #ED 298-905.

  • Milheim, W.D. and Azbell, J.W. (January, 1988). How past research on learner control can aid in the design of interactive video materials. ERIC #ED 295-625.

  • Newkirk, R.L. (1973). A comparison of learner control and machine control strategies for computer-assisted instruction. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology 10: 82–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, S.V. and Froman, R.D. (1992). Academic self-efficacy in elementary students. Journal of Research in Education 2: 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, I. and Hannafin, M.J., (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development 41(3): 63–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C.M. and Stein, F.S. (1983).The elaboration theory of instruction, in C.M. Reigeluth, ed., Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S.M. (1984). Matching the lesson to the student: Alternative adaptive designs for individualized learning systems. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 11: 42–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S.M. and Rakow, E.A. (1981). Learner control versus program control as adaptive strategies for selection of instructional support on math rules. Journal of Educational Psychology 73: 745–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction 9(3): 177–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamelia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J. and Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research 5: 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D.H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning, in C. Ames and R. Ames, eds., Research on Motivation in Education, Vol. 3. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, E.C., Schallert, D.L. and Savenye, W.C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students' learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology, Research and Development 42(1): 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shyu, H.S. and Brown, S.W. (1992). Learner control versus program control in interactive videodisc instruction: What are the effects in procedural learning? International Journal of Instructional Media 19(2): 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shyu, H.S. and Brown, S.W. (1993). A study of interactive learning: IVS and diagrams. Computers in the Schools 94(4): 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shyu, H.S. and Brown, S.W. (1995). Learner-Control: The effects on learning a procedural task during computer-based videodisc instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media 22(3): 217–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, R.E. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruction. Educational Psychologist 15: 151–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R.J. and Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-linear and multi-dimensional traversal of complex subject matter, in D. Nix and R. Spiro, eds., Cognition, Education, Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M. and Coulson, R. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for the advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains, in T. Duffy and D. Jonassen, eds., Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction (pp. 57–76). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R.J., Vispoel, W.P., Schmitz, J.G., Samarapungavan, A. and Boerger, A.E. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex con tent domains, in B.K. Britton and S.M. Ortony, eds., Executive Control Processes in Reading (pp. 177–199). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, E.R. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 3(3): 84–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (Winter, 1976). Achievement treatment interaction. Review of Educational Research 46: 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (1981). Adapting instruction to individual differences among students. Educational Psychologist 16: 111–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E. and Thompson, D.M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review 80: 352–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B.G. and Jonassen, D.H. (1989). Hypertext and instructional design: Some preliminary guidelines. Performance Improvement Quarterly 2(3): 34–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M.C. (1978). Developmental processes in learning from instruction. Journal of Genetic Psychology 132: 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wixson, K. and Peters, C. (1984). Reading redefined: A Michigan Reading Association position paper. The Michigan Reading Journal 17: 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M.F. and Kulikowich, J.M. (1992, April). Anchored Instruction and Anchored Assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Instructional Technology, Utah State University, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-2830, USA

    KIMBERLY A. LAWLESS

  2. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269-2064, USA

    SCOTT W. BROWN

Authors
  1. KIMBERLY A. LAWLESS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. SCOTT W. BROWN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

LAWLESS, K.A., BROWN, S.W. Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science 25, 117–131 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002919531780

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002919531780

Search

Navigation