Scaffolding Hypermedia Learning Through Metacognitive Prompts

  • Maria BannertEmail author
  • Christoph Mengelkamp
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)


The aim of this chapter is to discuss appropriate scaffolding for metacognitive reflection when learning with modern computer-based learning environments. Many researchers assume that prompting students for metacognitive reflection will affect the learning process by engaging students in more metacognitive behaviour leading to better learning performance. After defining basic constructs and assumptions, an overview of research on prompting metacognitive and self-regulated learning skills during hypermedia learning is presented. On the basis of this overview the design and effects of three kinds of metacognitive support (reflection prompts, metacognitive prompts, training & metacognitive prompts) are presented and discussed. In three experiments with university students, the experimental groups are supported by one of the types of metacognitive prompts, whereas the control groups are not supported. Analysis of learning processes and learning outcomes confirms the positive effects of all three types of metacognitive prompts; however their specific influence varies to a significant degree. The results and their explanations are in line with recent theories of metacognition and self-regulated learning. At the end of the chapter implications for the design of metacognitive support to improve hypermedia learning are discussed. Furthermore, implications for investigating metacognitive skills during hypermedia learning will be derived.


Learning Goal Metacognitive Knowledge Metacognitive Skill Learning Session Metacognitive Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported by funds from the German Science Foundation (DFG: BA 2044/1-1, BA 2044/5-1).


  1. Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (1999). IST 2000—Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367–379. Special Issue on Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning and Metacognition: Implications for the Design of Computer-Based Scaffolds.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319–339). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bannert, M. (2003). Effekte metakognitiver Lernhilfen auf den Wissenserwerb in vernetzten Lernumgebungen [Effects of metacognitive help devices on knowledge acquistion in networked learning environments]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bannert, M. (2005a). Designing metacognitive support for hypermedia learning. In T. Okamoto, D. Albert, T. Honda, & F. W. Hesse (Eds.), The 2nd joint workshop of cognition and learning through media-communication for advanced e-learning (pp. 11–16). Tokyo, Japan: Sophia University.Google Scholar
  8. Bannert, M. (2005b). 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
  9. Bannert, M. (2006). Effects of reflection prompts when learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bannert, M. (2007). Metakognition beil Lernen mit Hypermedien [Metacognition and hypermedia learning]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  11. Bannert, M. (2007b). Metakognition beim Lernen mit Hypermedia. Erfassung, Beschreibung und Vermittlung wirksamer metakognitiver Lernstrategien und Regu­lationsaktivitäten. [Metacognition and Learning with Hypermedia]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  12. Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts: A discussion. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie., 23, 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2009). Effects of Metacognitive Support Device in Learning Environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  16. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.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. 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
  19. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Detterman, D. K. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenom. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1–24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.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. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, selfregulated, and reflected. Instructional Science, 24, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. Kail & W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on development of memory and cognition (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Friedrich, H. F., & Mandl, H. (1992). In H. Mandl & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Lern- und Denkstrategien. Analyse und Intervention (pp. 3–54). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  27. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gentner, D. (1998). Analogy. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 107–113). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Graesser, A. C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., O’Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK Web Tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2010). The measurement of learners’ self-regulated cognitive and metacognitive processes while using computer-based learning environments’. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hasselhorn, M. (1995). Kognitives Training: Grundlagen, Begrifflichkeiten und Desirate. In W. Hager (Ed.), Programme zur Förderung des Denkens bei Kindern (pp. 14–40). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  32. Hermans, H., Petermann, F., & Zielinski, W. (1978). LMT—Leistungsmotivationstest. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  33. Hofer, B. (2004). Epistomological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kauffman, D. F., Ge, X., Xie, K., & Chen, C.-H. (2008). Prompting in web-based environments: Supporting self-monitoring and problem solving skills in college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38, 115–137. doi: 10.2190/EC.38.2.a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 1042–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting Learning of Variable Corntrol 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
  39. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  41. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated Learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 Measure-ment, 53, 801–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.Google Scholar
  45. Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B., & Koedinger, K. (2007). Designing for metacognition—applying Cognitive Tutor principles to metacognitive tutoring. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2–3), 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Improving students’ help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. Learning and Instruction, 21, 267–280. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schnotz, W. (1998). Strategy-specific information acccess in knowledge acquisition from hypertext. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning. Essays on situated cognition. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning. From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  51. Simons, P. R. J., & De Jong, F. P. (1992). Self-regulation and computer-assisted instruction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sitzmann, T., Bell, B. S., Kraiger, K., & Kanar, A. M. (2009). A multilevel analysis of the effect of prompting self-regulation in technology-delivered instruction. Personnel Psychology, 62, 697–734. doi: 10.1111/ j.1744-6570.2009.01155.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2010). Sometimes you need a reminder: The effects of prompting self-regulation on regulatory processes, learning, and attrition. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool metaware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stark, R., & Krause, U.-M. (2009). Effects of reflection prompts on learning outcomes and learning behaviour in statistics education. Learning Environments Research, 12, 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Valcke, M. (2002). Cognitive load: updating the theory? Learning and Instruction, 12, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Veenman, M. V. (1993). Metacognitive ability and metacognitive skill: Determinants of discovery learning in computeriezed learning environments. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  59. Veenman, M. V. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis [Learning strategies and metacogntion]. Implications for Research and Practice. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Veenman, M. J. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B.,& Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations.Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Veenman, M. J. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research and teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  65. Wild, K. P., Schiefele, U., & Winteler, A. (1992). LIST. Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Lernstrategien im Studium (Gelbe Reihe: Arbeiten zur Empirischen Pädagogik und Pädagogischen Psychologie, Nr. 20) [LIST. A Questionaire of learning strategies in university students]. Neubiberg: Universität der Bundeswehr, Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft und Pädagogische Psychologie.Google Scholar
  66. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Winne, P. H. (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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  68. Zumbach, J., & Bannert, M. (2006). Special Issue: Scaffolding cognitive learner control mechanisms in individual and collaborative learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wuerzburg, Educational MediaWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations