Instructional Science

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 193–211 | Cite as

Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts

  • Maria Bannert
  • Peter Reimann


The aim of this research was to develop and evaluate tools and supports for self-regulated learning with hypertext information structures, such as Web pages. Two kinds of supports for self-regulated learning were developed and tested experimentally: Prompting and Prompting with Training. In Experiment 1, Prompting was tested with a pre-post-test between subject design, including thinking-aloud data. Students of the experimental group (n = 20) were prompted for self-regulation activities that had to be followed while learning basic learning theory. No self-regulation support was offered in the control group (n = 20). In Experiment 2 (Prompting with Training), the experimental group (n = 20) received a short training, in addition to the prompting: the self-regulated learning activities were explained in detail, demonstrated and practiced right before the learning session. Again, no self-regulation support was offered in the control group (n = 20). Analyses of learning processes and learning outcomes confirm partly the positive effects of both measures of self-regulated learning prompts. The more extended measure (with training) had superior effects on students’ learning transfer performance and acceptance. Implications for the design of instructional support to improve self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments are discussed.


Self-regulated learning Metacognition Prompts Hypermedia 



This paper was written during a research stay at the Centre for Research on Computer-Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo), Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Australia, which was supported by funds from the German Science Foundation (DFG: BA 2044/5-1).


  1. Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (1999). IST 2000—Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 [Intelligence Structure Test 2000]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science (Special Issue on Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning and Metacognition: Implications for the Design of Computer-Based Scaffolds), 33, 367–379.Google Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated use of hypermedia. In A. Graesser, J. Dunlosky, & D. Hacker (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bannert, M. (2005). Explorationsstudie zum spontanen metakognitiven Strategie-Einsatz in hypermedialen Lernumgebungen [An exploratory study on spontaneous cognitive strategies in hypermedia learning]. In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 127–151). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  6. Bannert, M. (2006). Effects of reflection prompts when learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bannert, M. (2007). Metakognition beim Lernen mit Hypermedien [Metacognition and hypermedia learning]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  8. Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts: A discussion. German Journal of Educational Psychology (Special Issue on Promoting Self-Regulated Learning through Prompts), 23, 139–145.Google Scholar
  9. Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2009). Effects of metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2007). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of thinking-aloud instruction and reflection prompts. Does the method affect the learning performance? Metacognition and Learning, 3, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2009). Metakognitive Förderung des Lernens mit digitalen Medien durch Prompting-Maßnahmen [Metacognitive promotion of learning with digital media by prompting measures]. In R. Plötzner et al. (Hrsg.), Lernchance ComputerStrategien für das Lernen mit digitalen Medienverbünden (S. 67–87). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  12. Beasley, R. E., & Waugh, M. L. (1995). Cognitive mapping architectures and hypermedia disorientation: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4, 239–255.Google Scholar
  13. Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals—Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
  15. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Calvi, L., & De Bra, P. (1997). Proficiency-adapted information browsing and filtering in hypermedia educational systems. User Modelling & User-Adapted Interaction, 7, 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: Towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition. Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Friedrich, H. F., & Mandl, H. (1992). Lern- und Denkstrategien—ein Problemaufriß [Learning and thinking strategies—An outline of the problem]. In H. Mandl & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Lern- und Denkstrategien. Analyse und Intervention (pp. 3–54). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  24. Hasselhorn, M. (1995). Kognitives Training: Grundlagen, Begrifflichkeiten und Desirate [Cognitive training: basics, concepts and importance]. In W. Hager (Ed.), Programme zur Förderung des Denkens bei Kindern (pp. 14–40). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  25. Hermans, H., Petermann, F., & Zielinski, W. (1978). LMT—Leistungsmotivationstest [Motivation for Achievment Test]. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  26. Hofer, B. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kramarski, B., & Feldman, Y. (2000). Internet in the classroom: Effects on reading comprehension, motivation and metacognitive awareness. Educational Media International, 37(3), 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 1042–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Körndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1126–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning & Instruction, 19, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. M. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407.Google Scholar
  35. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachi, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and how education can do to promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.Google Scholar
  38. Schmitz, B. Landmann, M., & Perels, F. (2007). Das Selbstregulationsmodell und theoretische Implikationen [A model of self-regulated learning and its theoretical implications]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  39. Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction. Theory, research and practice (pp. 3–16). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  40. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning. From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  41. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Valcke, M. (2002). Cognitive load: Updating the theory? Learning and Instruction, 12, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2007). Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 532–548.Google Scholar
  44. Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., van Merrienboer, J., & van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on students’ self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 551–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2010). Effects of concurrent monitoring on cognitive load and performance as a function of task complexity. Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi: 10.1002/acp.1726.
  46. Veenman, M. V. J. (2007). The assessment and instruction of self-regulation in computer-based environments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Veenman, M., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition & Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2003). Aktuelle Motivation und Motivation im Lernverlauf [Current motivation and motivation in learning situations]. In J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept (pp. 281–295). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  49. Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 727–747). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wild, K. P., Schiefele, U., & Winteler, A. (1992). LIST. Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Lernstrategien im Studium [Learning strategies in universities studies] (Gelbe Reihe: Arbeiten zur Empirischen Pädagogik und Pädagogischen Psychologie, Nr. 20). Neubiberg: Universität der Bundeswehr, Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft und Pädagogische Psychologie.Google Scholar
  51. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Winter, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychological Review, 20, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wirth, J. (2009). Guest Editorial: Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. German Journal of Educational Psychology (Special Issue on Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts), 23, 91–94.Google Scholar
  54. Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2008). Self-regulated learning as a competence. German Journal of Psychology, 216, 102–110.Google Scholar
  55. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. Zumbach, J., & Bannert, M. (2006). Editorial introduction: Analyzing (self-)monitoring in computer assisted learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(4), 315–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational MediaChemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Research on Computer-Supported Learning and CognitionUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations