Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 29-44

  Shapiro, Amy M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Design; Hypermedia; Learner centered; Scaffolding

Indexed keywords

EID: 37649008377     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-007-9063-4     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Ausubel, D. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267-272.
2. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students' learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523-535.
3. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004a). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students' ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344-370.
4. Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004b). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students' conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1), 87-111.
5. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition-implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367-379.
6. Balajthy, E. (1990). Hypertext, hypermedia, and metacognition: Research and instructional implications for disabled readers. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 6(2), 183-202.
7. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 251-276.
8. Beyer, R. (1990). Psychologische Untersuchungen zur Gestaltung von Instruktionstexten [Psychological studies concerning the construction of instructional texts]. Mathematisch Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe, 39, 69-75. (Scientific journal published by Humboldt University, Berlin).
9. Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329-345.
10. Brown, A. (1982). Learning how to learn from reading. In J. A. Langer & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Reader meets author: Bridging the gap (pp. 26-54). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
11. Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive Hypermedia. User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction, 6(2-3), 87-110.
12. Brusilovsky, P., & Pesin, L. (1998). Adaptive navigation support in educational hypermedia: An evaluation of the ISIS-tutor. Journal of computing and Information Technology, 6(1), 27-38.
13. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
14. Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 322-349.
15. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69, 145-186.
16. Foltz, P. W. (1996). Comprehension, coherence, and strategies in hypertext and linear text. In J. J. Levonen, A. P. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 100-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Gall, J., & Hannafin, M. (1994). A framework for the study of hypertext. Instructional Science, 22(3), 207-232.
18. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative, expository text. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York: Guilford Publications.
19. Greenfield, P. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 117-138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101-117.
21. Hannafin, M. J., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundation, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Jacobson, M. J. (2006). From non-adaptive to adaptive educational hypermedia: Theory, research, and design issues. In S. Chen & G. Magoulas (Eds.), Advances in Web-based education: Personalized learning environments. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
23. Jacobson, M. J., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 149-199.
24. Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1996). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design, and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(3/4), 239-281.
25. 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.
26. Kauffman, D. (2002, April). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
27. Kauffman, D. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 139-162.
28. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
29. Large, A. (1996). Hypertext instructional programs and learner control: A research review. Education for Information, 14(2), 95-106.
30. Lee, S., & Lee, Y. H. K. (1991). Effects of learner control versus program control strategies on computer-aided learning of chemistry problems: For acquisition or review? Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 491-489.
31. Louwerse, M. M. (2002). Computational retrieval of themes. In M. M. Louwerse & W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 189-212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
32. Louwerse, M. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2004). Coherence in discourse. In P. Strazny (Ed.), Encyclopedia of linguistics. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.
33. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 79-93.
34. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
35. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
36. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text Cognition & Instruction, 14(1), 1-43.
37. McNamara, D. S., & Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Strategies for helping learners create coherence from text and hypertext. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 1-29.
38. Nielsen, J. (1989). The matters that really matter for hypertext usability. Proceedings of the Second Annual ACM Conference on Hypertext (pp. 239-248). Pittsburgh, PA.
39. Nielsen, J. (1990). The art of navigating through hypertext. Communications of the ACM, 33, 296-310.
40. Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes, remediation. In C. Cornaldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 69-92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.
42. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.
43. Potelle, H., & Rouet, J.-F. (2003). Effects of content representation and readers' prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 327-345.
44. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.
45. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-386.
46. Schnackenberg, H. L., & Sullivan, H. J. (2000). Learner control over full and lean computer based instruction under differing ability levels. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 19-35.
47. Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., Bendixen, L. D., & Roedel, T. D. (1995). Does a general monitoring skill exist? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 433-444.
48. Shapiro, A. M. (1998a). Promoting active learning: The role of system structure in learning from hypertext. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 1-35.
49. Shapiro, A. M. (1998b). The relationship between prior knowledge and interactive organizers during hypermedia-aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(2), 143-163.
50. Shapiro, A. M. (1999). The relevance of hierarchies to learning biology from hypertext. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(2), 215-243.
51. Shapiro, A. M. (2000). The effect of interactive overviews on the development of conceptual structure in novices learning from electronic texts. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 57-78.
52. Shapiro, A. M. (2004). Prior knowledge must be included as a subject variable in learning outcomes research. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 159-189.
53. Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Site map principle. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 313-324). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54. Shapiro, A. M., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 605-620). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55. Sherin, B., Reiser, B., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 387-421.
56. Shin, E., Schallert, D., & Savenye, W. (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.
57. Steinberg, E. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977-1988. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117-121.
58. Tergan, S. (1997). Multiple views, contexts, and symbol systems in learning with hypertext/hypermedia: A critical review of research. Educational Technology, 37(4), 5-18.
59. Winne, P. (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: Erlbaum.
60. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89-100.