Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding

  • Amy M. ShapiroEmail author
Research Article


A number of available resources offer guidance about hypermedia design strategies, many of which rely on principles of user-centered design. Many recent efforts, however, have focused more on developing learner-centered hypermedia. Learner-centered hypermedia is designed to help learners achieve their educational goals, rather than offer mere usability. Unfortunately, this endeavor is hamstrung by a lack of empirical research on the topic. Research conducted in my laboratory and others has provided some insight, however. It is now understood that several system and user characteristics influence outcomes of hypermedia-assisted learning (HAL). Among the most relevant factors are learners’ levels of metacognition and prior knowledge, and the interaction between these factors and hypermedia structure. By capitalizing on this research, it is possible to create hypermedia that scaffolds learners in their quest to build knowledge and understanding. The present article draws from empirical findings to suggest hypermedia design strategies aimed at scaffolding learners engaged in HAL. These guidelines target learners’ knowledge and metacognitive ability to structure hypermedia that maximizes learning potential.


Hypermedia Learner centered Design Scaffolding 



I wish to thank the editors of this special edition for organizing the HAL scaffolding symposium at the 2005 American Educational Research Association. Their leadership led to the conceptualization of this work and their insightful editing improved its quality.


  1. Ausubel, D. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004a). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004b). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1), 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition-implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balajthy, E. (1990). Hypertext, hypermedia, and metacognition: Research and instructional implications for disabled readers. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 6(2), 183–202.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beyer, R. (1990). Psychologische Untersuchungen zur Gestaltung von Instruktionstexten [Psychological studies concerning the construction of instructional texts]. Mathematisch Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe, 39, 69–75. (Scientific journal published by Humboldt University, Berlin).Google Scholar
  9. Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, A. (1982). Learning how to learn from reading. In J. A. Langer & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Reader meets author: Bridging the gap (pp. 26–54). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  11. Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive Hypermedia. User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction, 6(2–3), 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brusilovsky, P., & Pesin, L. (1998). Adaptive navigation support in educational hypermedia: An evaluation of the ISIS-tutor. Journal of computing and Information Technology, 6(1), 27–38.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69, 145–186.Google Scholar
  16. Foltz, P. W. (1996). Comprehension, coherence, and strategies in hypertext and linear text. In J. J. Levonen, A. P. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 100–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Gall, J., & Hannafin, M. (1994). A framework for the study of hypertext. Instructional Science, 22(3), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative, expository text. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Greenfield, P. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 117–138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hannafin, M. J., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundation, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobson, M. J. (2006). From non-adaptive to adaptive educational hypermedia: Theory, research, and design issues. In S. Chen & G. Magoulas (Eds.), Advances in Web-based education: Personalized learning environments. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobson, M. J., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 149–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1996). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design, and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(3/4), 239–281.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Kauffman, D. (2002, April). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  27. Kauffman, D. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Large, A. (1996). Hypertext instructional programs and learner control: A research review. Education for Information, 14(2), 95–106.Google Scholar
  30. Lee, S., & Lee, Y. H. K. (1991). Effects of learner control versus program control strategies on computer-aided learning of chemistry problems: For acquisition or review? Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 491–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Louwerse, M. M. (2002). Computational retrieval of themes. In M. M. Louwerse & W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 189–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Louwerse, M. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2004). Coherence in discourse. In P. Strazny (Ed.), Encyclopedia of linguistics. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.Google Scholar
  33. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62.Google Scholar
  35. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text Cognition & Instruction, 14(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McNamara, D. S., & Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Strategies for helping learners create coherence from text and hypertext. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nielsen, J. (1989). The matters that really matter for hypertext usability. Proceedings of the Second Annual ACM Conference on Hypertext (pp. 239–248). Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  39. Nielsen, J. (1990). The art of navigating through hypertext. Communications of the ACM, 33, 296–310.Google Scholar
  40. Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes, remediation. In C. Cornaldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 69–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.Google Scholar
  42. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Potelle, H., & Rouet, J.-F. (2003). Effects of content representation and readers’ prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schnackenberg, H. L., & Sullivan, H. J. (2000). Learner control over full and lean computer based instruction under differing ability levels. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., Bendixen, L. D., & Roedel, T. D. (1995). Does a general monitoring skill exist? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shapiro, A. M. (1998a). Promoting active learning: The role of system structure in learning from hypertext. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shapiro, A. M. (1998b). The relationship between prior knowledge and interactive organizers during hypermedia-aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(2), 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shapiro, A. M. (1999). The relevance of hierarchies to learning biology from hypertext. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(2), 215–243.Google Scholar
  51. Shapiro, A. M. (2000). The effect of interactive overviews on the development of conceptual structure in novices learning from electronic texts. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 57–78.Google Scholar
  52. Shapiro, A. M. (2004). Prior knowledge must be included as a subject variable in learning outcomes research. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 159–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Site map principle. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 313–324). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Shapiro, A. M., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 605–620). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  55. Sherin, B., Reiser, B., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 387–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shin, E., Schallert, D., & Savenye, W. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steinberg, E. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977–1988. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117–121.Google Scholar
  58. Tergan, S. (1997). Multiple views, contexts, and symbol systems in learning with hypertext/hypermedia: A critical review of research. Educational Technology, 37(4), 5–18.Google Scholar
  59. Winne, P. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of Massachusetts DartmouthNorth DartmouthUSA

Personalised recommendations