In this study the assumption was tested experimentally, whether prompting for reflection will enhance hypermedia learning and transfer. Students of the experimental group were prompted at each navigation step in a hypermedia system to say the reasons why they chose this specific information node out loud whereas the students of the control group learned without reflection prompting. University students (N = 46) participated and were counterbalanced according to their prior knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and verbal intelligence. The students' task was to learn the concepts of operant conditioning within 35 minutes. Students were completely free in navigation and students' individual learning sessions were videotaped. Immediately afterwards learning outcome was obtained. As expected, students learning with reflection prompts showed better transfer performance compared to the control group, especially if their navigation was based on strategic decisions. Even though prompting for reflection was successful, ways of further optimizing this kind of metacognitive intervention are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmthauerR.BrockeB.LiepmannD., & BeauducelA. (1999). IST 2000 – Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 [Intelligence Structure Test 2000]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
2.
AstleitnerH. (1997). Lernen in Informationsnetzen. Theoretische Aspekte und empirische Analysen des Umgangs mit neuen Informationstechnologien aus erziehungswissenschaftlicher Perspektive [Learning with information networks]. Frankfurt: Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften.
3.
BannertM. (2003). Effekte metakognitiver Lernhilfen auf den Wissenserwerb in vernetzten Lernumgebungen [Effects of metacognitive help devices on knowledge acquisition in networked learning environments]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17(1), 13–25.
4.
BannertM. (2005a). Explorationsstudie zum spontanen metakognitiven StrategieEinsatz in hypermedialen Lernumgebungen [An exploratory study on spontaneous cognitive strategies in hypermedia learning]. In ArteltC. B. & Moschner (Eds.). Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 127–151). Münster: Waxmann.
5.
BannertM. (2005b). Designing metacognitive support for hypermedia learning. In OkamotoT.AlbertD.HondaT. & HesseF. W. (Eds.). The 2nd Joint Workshop of Cognition and Learning through Media-Communication for Advanced e-Learning (pp. 11–16). Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan.
6.
BannertM. (2006). Metacognitive Instruction to Improve Self-Directed Learning. Paper presented at the AERA-Annual Meeting Conference, San Francisco, California.
7.
BannertM. (submitted). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of thinking-aloud instruction and reflection prompts. Does the method affect the learning performance?Metacognition and Learning.
8.
BerryD. C., & BroadbentD. E. (1990). The role of instruction and verbalization in improving performance on complex search task. Behavior & Information Technology, 9, 175–190.
9.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S., & NewmanS. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
ConklinJ. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. IEEE Computer, 20, 17–41.
11.
DillonA., & GabbardR. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68, 322–349.
12.
ErtmerP. A., & NewbyT. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, selfregulated, and reflected. Instructional Science, 24, 1–24.
13.
FriedrichH. F., & MandlH. (1992). Lern- und Denkstrategien—ein Problemaufriß [Learning and thinking—An analysis of the problem]. In MandlH. & FriedrichH. F. (Eds.), Lern- und Denkstrategien. Analyse und Intervention (pp. 3–54). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
14.
HasselhornM. (1995). Kognitives Training: Grundlagen, Begrifflichkeiten und Desiderate [Cognitive training: Foundations, terms and desiderates]. In HagerW. (Ed.), Programme zur Förderung des Denkens bei Kindern (pp. 14–40). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
15.
HasselhornM., & HagerW. (1998). Kognitive Trainings auf dem Prüfstand: Welche Komponenten charakterisieren erfolgreiche Fördermaßnahmen? [Cognitive trainings re-examined: Components of success]. In BeckM. (Ed.), Evaluation als Maßnahme der Qualitätssicherung. Pädagogisch-psychologische Interventionen auf dem Prüfstand (pp. 85–98). Tübingen: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Verhaltenstherapie.
16.
HeißA. (2005). Strukturelle und konzeptuelle Orientierungsprobleme beim Lernen mit Hypermedien [Structural and conceptual orientation problems within hypermedia learning]. Dissertation am Fachbereich 8: Psychologie, Universität Koblenz-Landau.
17.
HoferB. (2004). Epistomological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.
18.
JonassenD. H. (1989). Hypertext/Hypermedia.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
19.
JonassenD. H., & GrabingerR. S. (1990). Problems and issues in designing hypertext/hypermedia for learning. In JonassenD. H. & MandlH. (eds.), Designing hypermedia for learning (pp. 3–25). Berlin: Springer.
20.
LawlessK. A., & BrownS. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25, 117–131.
21.
LinX., & LehmanJ. 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.
22.
LinX.HmeloC.KinzerC. K., & SeculesT. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.
RosenshineB.MeisterC., & ChapmanS. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
25.
RouetJ. F., & LevonenJ. J. (1996). Studying and learning with hypertext: Empirical studies and their implications. In RouetJ. F.LevonenJ. J.DillonA., & SpiroR. J. (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 9–23). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
SchnotzW. (1998). Strategy-specific information acccess in knowledge acquisition from hypertext. In ResnickL.B.SäljöR.PontecorvoC., & BurgeB. (Eds.), Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning. Essays on Situated Cognition.Berlin: Springer.
27.
SchunkD. H., & ZimmermanB. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning. From teaching to self-reflective practice.New York: Guilford.
28.
SimonsP. R. J., & De JongF. P. (1992). Self-regulation and computer-assisted instruction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 333–346.
29.
SpiroR. J., & JehngJ. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In NixD. & SpiroR. J. (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
van den BoomG.PaasF.van MerrienboerJ., & van GogT. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a webbased learning environment: Effects on students' self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 551–567.
32.
VeenmanM. V. (1993). Metacognitive ability and metacognitive skill: Determinants of discovery learning in computerized learning environments.Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
33.
VeenmanM. V. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In ArteltC. & MoschnerB. (Eds.). Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis.Münster: Waxmann.
34.
WeinertE. (1994). Lernen lernen und das eigene Lernen verstehen [Learning learning and understanding own learning]. In ReusserK. & Reusser-WeyenethM. (Eds.), Verstehen—Psychologischer Prozeß und didaktische Aufgabe (pp. 183–205). Bern: Huber Verlag.
35.
WeinsteinC. E.HusmanJ., & DierkingD. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP. R. & ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 727–747). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
36.
WildK. P.SchiefeleU., & WintelerA. (1992). LIST. Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Lernstrategien im Studium [LIST. A scale for assessing learning strategies]. (Gelbe Reihe: Arbeiten zur Empirischen Pädagogik und Pädagogischen Psychologie, Nr. 20). Neubiberg: Universität der Bundeswehr, Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft und Pädagogische Psychologie.
37.
WinneP. H., & PerryN. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP. R. & ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
38.
WirthJ. (2004). Selbstregulation von Lernprozessen [Self-regulation of learning processes]. Münster: Waxmann.
