A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: theory, research, and learning emerging scientific conceptual perspectives

Research Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on theory and research issues associated with the use of hypermedia technologies in education. It is proposed that viewing hypermedia technologies as an enabling infrastructure for tools to support learning—in particular learning in problem-based pedagogical environments involving cases—has particular promise. After considering research issues with problem-based learning related to knowledge transfer and conceptual change, a design framework is discussed for a hypermedia system with scaffolding features intended to support and enhance problem-based learning with cases. Preliminary results are reported of research involving a new version of this hypermedia design approach with special ontological scaffolding to explore conceptual change and far knowledge transfer issues related to learning advanced scientific knowledge involving complex systems as well as the use of the system in a graduate seminar class. Overall, it is hoped that this program of research will stimulate further work on learning and cognitive sciences theoretical and research issues, on the characteristics of design features for robust and educationally powerful hypermedia systems, on ways that hypermedia systems might be used to support innovative pedagogical approaches being used in the schools, and on how particular designs for learning technologies might foster learning of conceptually difficult knowledge and skills that are increasingly necessary in the 21st century.

Keywords

Hypermedia Hypertext Technology design Problem based learning Conceptual change Transfer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The preparation of this paper has been supported in part by the Singapore Learning Sciences Laboratory at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Research projects by the author that were discussed in this paper have been supported in part by grants from the Singapore Learning Sciences Laboratory, Korea IT Industry Promotion Agency, Allison Group, National Science Foundation (RED-9253157 and RED-9616389), Spencer Foundation, the University of Georgia, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Sylvia d’Apollonia who produced the digital video clip of a moving slime mold aggregation for the Complex Systems Knowledge Mediator. Dr. Sharona Levy and Dr. Elizabeth Charles provided very helpful feedback on the content in an early version of the Complex Systems Knowledge Mediator (although any content errors remain the responsibility of the author), and Dr. Manu Kapur contributed challenging questions and thoughtful suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. The assistance of Phoebe Chen Jacobson, HyungShin Kim, Keol Lim, Foo Keong Ng, Seo-Hong Lim, June Lee, and Sok-Hua Low on recent research and development activities discussed in this paper is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (this volume). Why is externally-regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology, Research, and Development, doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9067-0.
  5. Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 3–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1), 95–115.Google Scholar
  8. Baylor, A. L., & Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. (2006). Interface agents to alleviate online frustration. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of “Inert knowledge”. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Current research and open questions (Vol. 2, pp. 65–80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., & Donovan, S. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Hejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education 24. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carey, S. (1995). Are children fundamentally different kinds of thinkers and learners than adults? In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 2, pp. 485–517). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Charles, E. S., & d’Apollonia, S. (2004). Developing a conceptual framework to explain emergent causality: Overcoming ontological beliefs to achieve conceptual change. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Reiger (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from: http://www.cogsci.northwestern.edu/cogsci2004/sessions.html#emergent.
  17. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Implications for learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science: Cognitive models of science (Vol. XV, pp. 129–186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.) (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Education Research, 63(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 322–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications (pp. 9–46). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Goldstone, R. L. (2006). The complex systems see-change in education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Promoting transfer through complex systems principles. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  37. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(March), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hmelo, C. E. (1995). Problem-based learning: Effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(2), 173–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 3, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Horwitz, P., Taylor, E. F. T., & Hickman, P. (1994). “Relativity readiness” using the rellab program. Physics Teacher, 32(2), 81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jacobson, M. J. (1994). Issues in hypertext and hypermedia research: Toward a framework for linking theory-to-design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(2), 141–154.Google Scholar
  42. Jacobson, M. J. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity, 6(3), 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jacobson, M. J. (2004). Cognitive visualisations and the design of learning technologies. International Journal of Learning Technologies, 1(1), 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jacobson, M. J. (2006). From non-adaptive to adaptive educational hypermedia: Theory, research, and design issues. In G. Magoulas & S. Chen (Eds.), Advances in web-based education: Personalized learning environments (pp. 302–330). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  45. Jacobson, M. J., Angulo, A. J., & Kozma, R. B. (2000). Introduction: New perspectives on designing the technologies of learning. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 1–10). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Jacobson, M. J., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 149–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jacobson, M. J., Lee, J., Jacobson, P. C., Lim, S. H., & Low, L. (2007). Research into designing hypermedia environments for advanced learning with problems and cases: Contrasting and comparing systems in two domains. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  48. Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1996a). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design, and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(3/4), 239–281.Google Scholar
  49. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(5), 301–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jacobson, M. J., Sugimoto, A., & Archodidou, A. (1996b). Evolution, hypermedia learning environments, and conceptual change: A preliminary report. In D. C. Edelson & E. A. Domeshek (Eds.), International conference on the learning sciences, 1996: Proceedings of ICLS 96 (pp. 151–158). Charlottesville, Virginia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  51. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kapur, M. (2006). Productive failure. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.Google Scholar
  53. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  54. Kozma, R. B. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 1–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  55. Kozma, R. B. (Ed.) (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  56. Kozma, R. B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 105–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kuhn, T. S. (1971). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nathan, M. J., & Resnick, L. B. (1994). Less can be more: Unintelligent tutoring based on psychological theories and experimentation. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, & H. Mandl (Eds.), Technology-based learning environments (pp. 183–192). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  60. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002). The effects of modeling expert cognitive strategies during problem-based learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 353–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. W. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1993/1994). The design of goal-based scenarios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(4), 305–345.Google Scholar
  65. Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2003). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for education communications and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  66. Simon, H. A., & Hayes, J. R. (1976). The understanding process: Problem isomorphs. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel (Ed.), Tenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 375–383). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  69. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–34.Google Scholar
  70. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). 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: A conversation (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  71. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  72. Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. P., Schmitz, J. G., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. E. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. K. Britton & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp. 177–199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  73. Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1990). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive science, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany, NY: Sunny Press.Google Scholar
  74. Tergan, S. O. (1997). Conceptual and methodological shortcomings in hypertext/hypermedia design and research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Thompson, L., Gentner, D., & Loewenstein, J. (2000). Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vernon, D. T. A., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluation research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vosniadou, S. (1996). Learning environments for representational growth and cognitive flexibility. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 13–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  79. Vosniadou, S. (2002). Mental models in conceptual development. In L. Magnani & N. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values. New York: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  80. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 123–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  83. Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction in context: Examples from legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(4), 367–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zietsman, A., & Clement, J. (1997). The role of extreme case reasoning in instruction for conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Sciences Laboratory, National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations