Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this research was to develop and evaluate tools and supports for self-regulated learning with hypertext information structures, such as Web pages. Two kinds of supports for self-regulated learning were developed and tested experimentally: Prompting and Prompting with Training. In Experiment 1, Prompting was tested with a pre-post-test between subject design, including thinking-aloud data. Students of the experimental group (n = 20) were prompted for self-regulation activities that had to be followed while learning basic learning theory. No self-regulation support was offered in the control group (n = 20). In Experiment 2 (Prompting with Training), the experimental group (n = 20) received a short training, in addition to the prompting: the self-regulated learning activities were explained in detail, demonstrated and practiced right before the learning session. Again, no self-regulation support was offered in the control group (n = 20). Analyses of learning processes and learning outcomes confirm partly the positive effects of both measures of self-regulated learning prompts. The more extended measure (with training) had superior effects on students’ learning transfer performance and acceptance. Implications for the design of instructional support to improve self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (1999). IST 2000—Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 [Intelligence Structure Test 2000]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science (Special Issue on Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning and Metacognition: Implications for the Design of Computer-Based Scaffolds), 33, 367–379.

  • Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated use of hypermedia. In A. Graesser, J. Dunlosky, & D. Hacker (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M. (2005). 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.

  • Bannert, M. (2006). Effects of reflection prompts when learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M. (2007). Metakognition beim Lernen mit Hypermedien [Metacognition and hypermedia learning]. Münster: Waxmann.

  • Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts: A discussion. German Journal of Educational Psychology (Special Issue on Promoting Self-Regulated Learning through Prompts), 23, 139–145.

  • Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2009). Effects of metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 829–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2009). Metakognitive Förderung des Lernens mit digitalen Medien durch Prompting-Maßnahmen [Metacognitive promotion of learning with digital media by prompting measures]. In R. Plötzner et al. (Hrsg.), Lernchance Computer—Strategien für das Lernen mit digitalen Medienverbünden (S. 67–87). Münster: Waxmann.

  • Beasley, R. E., & Waugh, M. L. (1995). Cognitive mapping architectures and hypermedia disorientation: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4, 239–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals—Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvi, L., & De Bra, P. (1997). Proficiency-adapted information browsing and filtering in hypermedia educational systems. User Modelling & User-Adapted Interaction, 7, 257–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: Towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, H. F., & Mandl, H. (1992). Lern- und Denkstrategien—ein Problemaufriß [Learning and thinking strategies—An outline of the problem]. In H. Mandl & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Lern- und Denkstrategien. Analyse und Intervention (pp. 3–54). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

  • Hasselhorn, M. (1995). Kognitives Training: Grundlagen, Begrifflichkeiten und Desirate [Cognitive training: basics, concepts and importance]. In W. Hager (Ed.), Programme zur Förderung des Denkens bei Kindern (pp. 14–40). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

  • Hermans, H., Petermann, F., & Zielinski, W. (1978). LMT—Leistungsmotivationstest [Motivation for Achievment Test]. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

  • Hofer, B. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramarski, B., & Feldman, Y. (2000). Internet in the classroom: Effects on reading comprehension, motivation and metacognitive awareness. Educational Media International, 37(3), 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 1042–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (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(7), 837–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Körndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1126–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning & Instruction, 19, 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. M. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Measurement, 53, 801–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and how education can do to promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, B. Landmann, M., & Perels, F. (2007). Das Selbstregulationsmodell und theoretische Implikationen [A model of self-regulated learning and its theoretical implications]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning. From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valcke, M. (2002). Cognitive load: Updating the theory? Learning and Instruction, 12, 147–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2007). Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 532–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., van Merrienboer, J., & van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on students’ self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 551–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2010). Effects of concurrent monitoring on cognitive load and performance as a function of task complexity. Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi:10.1002/acp.1726.

  • Veenman, M. V. J. (2007). The assessment and instruction of self-regulation in computer-based environments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 177–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition & Learning, 1, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2003). Aktuelle Motivation und Motivation im Lernverlauf [Current motivation and motivation in learning situations]. In J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept (pp. 281–295). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

  • 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 Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wild, K. P., Schiefele, U., & Winteler, A. (1992). LIST. Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Lernstrategien im Studium [Learning strategies in universities studies] (Gelbe Reihe: Arbeiten zur Empirischen Pädagogik und Pädagogischen Psychologie, Nr. 20). Neubiberg: Universität der Bundeswehr, Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft und Pädagogische Psychologie.

  • Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychological Review, 20, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, J. (2009). Guest Editorial: Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. German Journal of Educational Psychology (Special Issue on Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts), 23, 91–94.

  • Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2008). Self-regulated learning as a competence. German Journal of Psychology, 216, 102–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zumbach, J., & Bannert, M. (2006). Editorial introduction: Analyzing (self-)monitoring in computer assisted learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(4), 315–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper was written during a research stay at the Centre for Research on Computer-Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo), Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Australia, which was supported by funds from the German Science Foundation (DFG: BA 2044/5-1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Media, Chemnitz University of Technology, 09126, Chemnitz, Germany

    Maria Bannert

  2. Centre for Research on Computer-Supported Learning and Cognition, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Peter Reimann

Authors
  1. Maria Bannert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Reimann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Bannert.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Correlations among the dependent variables of Experiment 1 (N = 40) and Experiment 2 (N = 40)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bannert, M., Reimann, P. Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instr Sci 40, 193–211 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9167-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9167-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation