Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: theory, research, and learning emerging scientific conceptual perspectives

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper focuses on theory and research issues associated with the use of hypermedia technologies in education. It is proposed that viewing hypermedia technologies as an enabling infrastructure for tools to support learning—in particular learning in problem-based pedagogical environments involving cases—has particular promise. After considering research issues with problem-based learning related to knowledge transfer and conceptual change, a design framework is discussed for a hypermedia system with scaffolding features intended to support and enhance problem-based learning with cases. Preliminary results are reported of research involving a new version of this hypermedia design approach with special ontological scaffolding to explore conceptual change and far knowledge transfer issues related to learning advanced scientific knowledge involving complex systems as well as the use of the system in a graduate seminar class. Overall, it is hoped that this program of research will stimulate further work on learning and cognitive sciences theoretical and research issues, on the characteristics of design features for robust and educationally powerful hypermedia systems, on ways that hypermedia systems might be used to support innovative pedagogical approaches being used in the schools, and on how particular designs for learning technologies might foster learning of conceptually difficult knowledge and skills that are increasingly necessary in the 21st century.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Earlier papers referred to this design framework for hypermedia as the “Knowledge Mediator Framework.” The phrase “Scaffolding Connected Knowledge Framework” is now preferred as it seems more descriptive of features of the framework for designing hypermedia systems for learning, as well as its potential use to inform designs of other educational digital media.

  2. This summary paragraph simplifies the discussion of four different but related studies in which there were two “generic” treatment groups that were varied in each of the studies. Detailed discussion of all the treatment groups in these studies is available in the papers by Gentner and associates (Gentner et al. 2003; Thompson et al. 2000).

  3. This observation is based on conversations with university faculty colleagues who have been active in medical problem-based learning and the use of cases in university business schools.

  4. See Jacobson (2006) for how embedding an intelligent learning agent module might enable an adaptive bi-directional relationship between the learner’s actions in Learning Tasks and the content and scaffolding in the SCKF system.

  5. In some SCKF systems, the abstract concepts the students need to understand are covered in a textbook or as part of a teacher’s class presentations. In these situations, the abstract concepts may be called a “Glossary” where the learner obtains short explanations of the concepts with references to where additional information may be obtained.

References

  • Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (this volume). Why is externally-regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology, Research, and Development, doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9067-0.

  • Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 3–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1), 95–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L., & Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. (2006). Interface agents to alleviate online frustration. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of “Inert knowledge”. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Current research and open questions (Vol. 2, pp. 65–80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., & Donovan, S. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Hejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education 24. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1995). Are children fundamentally different kinds of thinkers and learners than adults? In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 2, pp. 485–517). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, E. S., & d’Apollonia, S. (2004). Developing a conceptual framework to explain emergent causality: Overcoming ontological beliefs to achieve conceptual change. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Reiger (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from: http://www.cogsci.northwestern.edu/cogsci2004/sessions.html#emergent.

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Implications for learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science: Cognitive models of science (Vol. XV, pp. 129–186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.) (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Education Research, 63(1), 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2), 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications (pp. 9–46). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L. (2006). The complex systems see-change in education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Promoting transfer through complex systems principles. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(March), 159–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo, C. E. (1995). Problem-based learning: Effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(2), 173–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 3, 235–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, P., Taylor, E. F. T., & Hickman, P. (1994). “Relativity readiness” using the rellab program. Physics Teacher, 32(2), 81–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J. (1994). Issues in hypertext and hypermedia research: Toward a framework for linking theory-to-design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(2), 141–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity, 6(3), 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J. (2004). Cognitive visualisations and the design of learning technologies. International Journal of Learning Technologies, 1(1), 40–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J. (2006). From non-adaptive to adaptive educational hypermedia: Theory, research, and design issues. In G. Magoulas & S. Chen (Eds.), Advances in web-based education: Personalized learning environments (pp. 302–330). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., Angulo, A. J., & Kozma, R. B. (2000). Introduction: New perspectives on designing the technologies of learning. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 1–10). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 149–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., Lee, J., Jacobson, P. C., Lim, S. H., & Low, L. (2007). Research into designing hypermedia environments for advanced learning with problems and cases: Contrasting and comparing systems in two domains. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

  • Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1996a). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design, and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(3/4), 239–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., Sugimoto, A., & Archodidou, A. (1996b). Evolution, hypermedia learning environments, and conceptual change: A preliminary report. In D. C. Edelson & E. A. Domeshek (Eds.), International conference on the learning sciences, 1996: Proceedings of ICLS 96 (pp. 151–158). Charlottesville, Virginia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2006). Productive failure. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.

  • Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 1–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (Ed.) (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

  • Kozma, R. B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 105–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1971). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, M. J., & Resnick, L. B. (1994). Less can be more: Unintelligent tutoring based on psychological theories and experimentation. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, & H. Mandl (Eds.), Technology-based learning environments (pp. 183–192). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002). The effects of modeling expert cognitive strategies during problem-based learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 353–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. W. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1993/1994). The design of goal-based scenarios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(4), 305–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2003). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for education communications and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A., & Hayes, J. R. (1976). The understanding process: Problem isomorphs. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel (Ed.), Tenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 375–383). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. P., Schmitz, J. G., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. E. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. K. Britton & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp. 177–199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1990). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive science, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany, NY: Sunny Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tergan, S. O. (1997). Conceptual and methodological shortcomings in hypertext/hypermedia design and research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 209–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L., Gentner, D., & Loewenstein, J. (2000). Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 60–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, D. T. A., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluation research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1996). Learning environments for representational growth and cognitive flexibility. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 13–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2002). Mental models in conceptual development. In L. Magnani & N. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values. New York: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 123–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction in context: Examples from legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(4), 367–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zietsman, A., & Clement, J. (1997). The role of extreme case reasoning in instruction for conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 61–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The preparation of this paper has been supported in part by the Singapore Learning Sciences Laboratory at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Research projects by the author that were discussed in this paper have been supported in part by grants from the Singapore Learning Sciences Laboratory, Korea IT Industry Promotion Agency, Allison Group, National Science Foundation (RED-9253157 and RED-9616389), Spencer Foundation, the University of Georgia, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Sylvia d’Apollonia who produced the digital video clip of a moving slime mold aggregation for the Complex Systems Knowledge Mediator. Dr. Sharona Levy and Dr. Elizabeth Charles provided very helpful feedback on the content in an early version of the Complex Systems Knowledge Mediator (although any content errors remain the responsibility of the author), and Dr. Manu Kapur contributed challenging questions and thoughtful suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. The assistance of Phoebe Chen Jacobson, HyungShin Kim, Keol Lim, Foo Keong Ng, Seo-Hong Lim, June Lee, and Sok-Hua Low on recent research and development activities discussed in this paper is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences Laboratory, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Michael J. Jacobson

Authors
  1. Michael J. Jacobson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Jacobson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacobson, M.J. A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: theory, research, and learning emerging scientific conceptual perspectives. Education Tech Research Dev 56, 5–28 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9065-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9065-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation