Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding

Abstract

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.

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

Fig. 1

References

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  17. Gall, J., & Hannafin, M. (1994). A framework for the study of hypertext. Instructional Science, 22(3), 207–232.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shapiro, A. M. (1998a). Promoting active learning: The role of system structure in learning from hypertext. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 1–35.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy M. Shapiro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shapiro, A.M. Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Education Tech Research Dev 56, 29–44 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9063-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Hypermedia
  • Learner centered
  • Design
  • Scaffolding