Hypermedia and Self-Regulation: An Interplay in Both Directions

  • Maria Opfermann
  • Katharina Scheiter
  • Peter Gerjets
  • Annett Schmeck
Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)

Abstract

Rapid technological developments and growing interest in learning approaches other than traditional ones such as ex cathedra teaching have made hypermedia environments an increasingly popular learning device. Such environments have several advantages, but place demands on learners as well, such as requiring substantially more metacognitive and self-regulatory skills compared to structured and guided learning environments. For instance, learners should be able to check whether they learn with an appropriate combination of representations and whether their pace of information retrieval or navigation speed is appropriate. On the other hand, hypermedia environments can also support metacognitive and self-regulatory abilities and skills precisely because of their demands. When learners are not only passive recipients of information that is presented to them in bite-sized pieces but have to take decisions regarding their own learning process, active and constructive learning can be enhanced.

This chapter will first give an introduction on hypermedia, including its benefits and requirements. In a next step, we will go into more detail regarding theories and models of self-regulated learning that served as a framework for our own research on the effectiveness of hypermedia learning environment. This will finally be followed by sections discussing the “interplay in both directions,” that is, (a) what importance self-regulatory skills have for hypermedia learning and (b) how hypermedia environments could be designed and used to support self-regulated learning.

Keywords

Assure 

References

  1. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2003). Learning from traditional and alternative texts: New conceptualization for an information age. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 199–241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.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., & Cromley, J. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates students’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., Greene, J. A., & Moos, D. C. (2007). The effect of a human agent’s external regulation upon college students’ hypermedia learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azevedo, R., Moos, D., Johnson, A., & Chauncey, A. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45, 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bannert, M. (2003). Effekte metakognitiver Lernhilfen auf den Wissenserwerb in vernetzten Lernumgebungen. [Effects of metacognitive learning support on knowledge gains in networked learning environments.]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Bannert, M. (2005b). Explorationsstudie zum spontanen metakognitiven Strategie-Einsatz in hypermedialen Lernumgebungen. [Exploration study on the spontaneous metacognitive strategy use in hypermedia learning environments.]. In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 127–151). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  10. Bendixen, L. D., & Hartley, K. (2003). Successful learning with hypermedia: The role of epistemological beliefs and metacognitive awareness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cates, W. M. (1992). Considerations in evaluating metacognition in interactive hypermedia/multimedia instruction. Oral presentation at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  12. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerjets, P., & Hesse, F. W. (2004). When are powerful learning environments effective? The role of learning activities and of students’ conceptions of educational technology. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horz, H., Winter, C., & Fries, S. (2006). Differential effects of situated prompts on learning behaviour in authentic simulations. In G. Clarebout & J. Elen (Eds.), Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity: Advances in studying and designing powerful (computer-based) learning environments (pp. 145–154). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom. Mindtools for critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabinger, R. (1990). Problems and issues in designing hypertext/hypermedia for learning. In D. Jonassen & H. Mandl (Eds.), Designing hypermedia for learning (pp. 3–26). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 837–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayer, R. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nesbit, J. C., Winne, P. H., Jamieson-Noel, D., Code, J., Zhou, M., MacAllister, K., et al. (2006). Using cognitive tools in gStudy to investigate how study activities covary with achievement goals. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Opfermann, M. (2008). There’s more to it than instructional design—The role of individual learner characteristics for hypermedia learning. Berlin, Germany: Logos.Google Scholar
  21. Rouet, J. F., & Eme, P. E. (2002). The role of metatextual knowledge in text comprehension: Some issues in development and individual differences. In P. Chambres, M. Izaute, & P. J. Marescaux (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, function and use (pp. 121–134). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rouet, J. F., & Levonen, J. J. (1996). Studying and learning with hypertext: Empirical studies and their implications. In J.-F. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 9–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt, A., & Ford, J. K. (2003). Learning within a learner control training environment: The interaction effects of goal orientation and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 56, 405–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schnotz, W., Heiß, A., & Eckhardt, E. (2005). Wann sind Lernhilfen in hypermedialen Lernumgebungen erfolgreich? [When is instructional support in hypermedia learning environments successful?]. In A. Schütz, S. Habscheid, W. Holly, J. Krems, & C. G. Voß (Eds.), Neue Medien im Alltag: Befunde aus den Bereichen Arbeit, Lernen und Freizeit (pp. 189–203). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schwartz, N. H., Andersen, 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
  28. Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 605–620). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Stadtler, M. (2006). Auf der Suche nach medizinischen Fachinformationen: Metakognition bei der Internetrecherche von Laien. [Searching for medical information: Metacognition in the internet search of novices.]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  31. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14, 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 (pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Zumbach, J. (2007). The role of graphical and text-based argumentation tools in hypermedia learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Opfermann
    • 1
  • Katharina Scheiter
    • 2
  • Peter Gerjets
    • 2
  • Annett Schmeck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Instructional PsychologyDuisburg-Essen UniversityEssenGermany
  2. 2.Knowledge Media Research CenterTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations