Instructional Science

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 117–131 | Cite as

Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation



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.

external constraints internal learner characteristics multimedia environments 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Armbruster, B.B. (1986). Schema theory and the design of content-area textbooks. Educational Psychologist 21: 253–267.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior. Psychological Review 84: 191–215.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barab, S.A., Bowdish, B.E. and Lawless, K.A. (1996). Hypermedia navigation: Characterizing the emergent interpretation. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Barab, S.A., Young, M.F. and Shaw, R. (1996). Anchors as naturalistic constraints on hypertext navigation. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  9. Binder, C. (1989). Hypertext design issues. Performance Improvement Quarterly 2(3): 16–33.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, J.S., Collins, A. and DuGuid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher Jan.-Feb.: 32–42.Google Scholar
  12. Bruner, J.S. (1973). Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  13. Campizzi, J.A. (1978). Effects of locus of control and provision of overviews in a computer-assisted instruction sequence. AEDS Journal.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Craik, F.I.M. and Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research on Interactions. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  17. Cronbach, L.J. and Snow, R.E. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research Interaction. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  18. Dillon, A. (1991). Readers' models of text structure: The case of academic materials. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35: 913–925.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Fowler, J.F. (1983). Use of computer-assisted instruction in introductory management science. Journal of Experimental Education 52: 22–26.Google Scholar
  22. Fry, J.P. (1972). Interactive relationship between inquisitiveness and student control of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 459–465.Google Scholar
  23. Gall, J.E. and Hannafin, M.J. (1994). A framework for the study of hypertext. Instructional Science 22: 207–232.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Grabinger, R.S., Dunlap, J.C. and Jonassen, D.H. (1993). Relational links. Performance & Instruction: 35–40.Google Scholar
  27. Gray, S.H. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer-assisted learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 2: 54–56.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Jonassen, D.H. (1986). Hypertext principles for text and courseware design. Educational Psychologist 21(4): 269–292.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Judd, W.A. (1972). Learner-controlled computer-assisted instruction. ERIC #ED 072-635.Google Scholar
  36. Kozma, R.B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research 6(2): 179–211.Google Scholar
  37. Lahey, G.F. (1976). Learner control of lesson strategy: A model for PLATO IV system lessons. ERIC #ED 125-543.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Lawless, K.A. and Kulikowich, J.M. (in press). Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. Lepper, M. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. American Psychologist 40: 1–18.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Merrill, M.D. (1975). Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions. AV Communications Review 23: 217–226.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Merrill, M.D. (1984). What is learner control? Instructional Development: The state of the art II. ERIC #ED 298-905.Google Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Owen, S.V. and Froman, R.D. (1992). Academic self-efficacy in elementary students. Journal of Research in Education 2: 3–7.Google Scholar
  51. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction 9(3): 177–199.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. Snow, R.E. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruction. Educational Psychologist 15: 151–158.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. Steinberg, E.R. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 3(3): 84–90.Google Scholar
  68. Tobias, S. (Winter, 1976). Achievement treatment interaction. Review of Educational Research 46: 61–74.Google Scholar
  69. Tobias, S. (1981). Adapting instruction to individual differences among students. Educational Psychologist 16: 111–120.Google Scholar
  70. Tulving, E. and Thompson, D.M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review 80: 352–373.Google Scholar
  71. Wilson, B.G. and Jonassen, D.H. (1989). Hypertext and instructional design: Some preliminary guidelines. Performance Improvement Quarterly 2(3): 34–49.Google Scholar
  72. Wittrock, M.C. (1978). Developmental processes in learning from instruction. Journal of Genetic Psychology 132: 37–54.Google Scholar
  73. Wixson, K. and Peters, C. (1984). Reading redefined: A Michigan Reading Association position paper. The Michigan Reading Journal 17: 4–7.Google Scholar
  74. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Instructional Technology, Utah State UniversityUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations