Analyzing Navigation Patterns to Scaffold Metacognition in Hypertext Systems

  • Sadhana Puntambekar
  • Sarah A. Sullivan
  • Roland Hübscher
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)


One of the affordances of hypertext environments is the freedom to choose the order of information presentation. However, learners may have difficulty self-regulating their learning in order to make navigation decisions that align with their goals. This chapter presents our work in helping students learn from hypertext using the CoMPASS hypertext system in middle school science classes. The CoMPASS system design includes navigable concept maps that reflect connections among concepts in the domain of physics and are used to help students understand the relationships between science ideas. In CoMPASS, students’ self-regulated behavior is detected through the use of computer-generated log files that allow us analyze student navigation behavior post hoc and create clusters of navigation patterns. We are then able to examine these clusters of navigation patterns to determine differences in students’ SRL processes and the types of scaffolding that they may need. This chapter presents five different navigation pattern clusters that have been identified as typical of students’ navigation behavior in CoMPASS. We further discuss how these clusters will be matched to the navigation behaviors of future students and used to inform an algorithm that will provide adaptive real-time navigation prompts in order to scaffold metacognition and self-regulated learning.


Certainty Factor Semantic Link Navigation Path Navigation Pattern Navigation Behavior 
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.


  1. Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J., & Jetton, T. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64, 201–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2005a). Computers as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R. (2005b). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1 and 2), 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barab, S. A., Fagan, B. R., Kulikowich, J. M., & Young, M. F. (1996). Assessing hypermedia navigation through pathfinder: Prospects and limitations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(3), 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bedersen, B. B., & Hollan, J. (1995). Pad++: A zooming graphical interface for exploring alternate interface physics. In P. Szekely (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 17–26). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bolter, J. D. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Bolter, J. D. (1998). Hypertext and the question of visual literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kiefer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext and the remediation of print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  12. Braten, I., Britt, M. A., Stromso, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheng, P. C.-H. (1999). Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems. Computers in Education, 33, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chi, M. T. H., Hutchinson, J., & Robin, A. F. (1989). How inferences about novel domain-related concepts can be constrained by structured knowledge. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 27–62.Google Scholar
  15. Chi, M. T. H., & Koeske, R. (1983). Network representation of a child’s dinosaur knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 19, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clancey, W. J. (1985). Heuristic classification. Artificial Intelligence, 27, 289–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edmondson, K. M. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 19–40). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Friedman-Hill, E. (2003). Jess in action: Java rule-based systems. Greenwich, CT: Manning Publications Company. Web site
  20. Furnas, G. W. (1986). Generalized fisheye views. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 16–23). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  21. Glinert, E. P. (1990). Visual programming environments: Paradigms and systems. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  22. Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). The psychology of learning science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Green, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical view of Winne & Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics research and teaching (pp. 65–100). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hübscher, R. (1997). Visual constraint rules. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 8, 425–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hübscher, R., & Puntambekar, S. (2004). Modeling learners as individuals and as groups. In P. De Bra & W. Nejdl (Eds.), Adaptive hypermedia and adaptive web-based systems (Vol. LNCS 3137, pp. 300–303). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hübscher, R., & Puntambekar, S. (2008). Integrating knowledge gained from data mining with pedagogical knowledge. In R. S. J. d. Baker, T. Barnes & J. E. Beck (Eds.),Educational Data Mining 2008: 1st International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Proceedings. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Kozma, R. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 11–46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1996). Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(4), 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook for the learning sciences (pp. 243–264). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Narayanan, N. H., & Hübscher, R. (1998). Visual language theory: Towards a human-computer ­interaction perspective. In B. Meyer & K. Marriott (Eds.), Visual language theory (pp. 85–127). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2000). Do teachers support causal understanding through their discourse when teaching primary science? British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 599–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Niegemann, H. M. (2001). Analyzing navigation patterns of learning in hypermedia learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  37. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2004). Building on constructivist ideas and CmapTools to create a new model for education. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. González (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology, proceedings of the 1st international conference on concept mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra.Google Scholar
  38. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006–01 Rev 01–2008. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Retrieved from
  39. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pearsall, N. R., Skipper, J. E. J., & Mintzes, J. J. (1997). Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences: A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology. Science Education, 81(2), 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Puntambekar, S., & Stylianou, A. (2005). Designing navigation support in hypertext systems based on navigation patterns. Instructional Science, 33(5), 451–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 81–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Hübscher, R. (2003). Improving navigation and learning in hypertext environments with navigable concept maps. Human Computer Interaction, 18(4), 395–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Quirin, A., Cordón, O., Santamaría, J., Vargas-Quesada, B., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2008). A new variant of the Pathfinder algorithm to generate large visual science maps in cubic time. Information Processing and Management, 44, 1611–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). Using hypertext systems. In J.-F. Rouet (Ed.), The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning (pp. 122–138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Rouet, J.-F., & Coutelet, B. (2008). The acquisition of document search strategies in grade school students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rowe, A. L., Cooke, N. J., Hall, E. P., & Halgren, T. L. (1996). Toward an on-line knowledge assessment methodology: Building on the relationship between knowing and doing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2(1), 31–47.Google Scholar
  48. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sasot, A., & Suau, J. (2000). Improving teaching materials: The structuring of learning, the interrelationship of information and the search for higher levels of interactivity. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 1, 35–46.Google Scholar
  50. Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  51. Schwartz, N., Anderson, C., Hong, N., Howard, B., & McGee, S. (2004). The influence of metacognitive skills on learners’ memory of information in a hypermedia environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shapiro, A. M., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 605–620). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Sharples, M. (1999). How we write: Writing as creative design. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. J. (1991). Cognitive flexibility constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33.Google Scholar
  55. Spitulnik, M. W., Zembal-Saul, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (1998). Using hypermedia to represent emerging student understanding: Science learners and preservice teachers. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 229–259). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  56. Tergan, S.-O., Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2008). Digital concept maps as powerful interfaces for enhancing information search: An experimental study of the effects of semantic cueing. In A. J. Cañas, P. Reiska, M. Åhlberg, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept mapping: Connecting educators. Proceedings of the third international conference on concept mapping. Tallinn, Finland: Estonia and Helsinki.Google Scholar
  57. Trowbridge, J. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1998). Theory-driven graphic organizers. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 95–131). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  58. Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sadhana Puntambekar
    • 1
  • Sarah A. Sullivan
    • 1
  • Roland Hübscher
    • 2
  1. 1.Learning Sciences Program, Educational Psychology DepartmentUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Information DesignBentley UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations