Spiro et al. (1992) and Shapiro & Niederhauser (2004) describe the influence of hypertext-assisted learning (HAL) on learning and reading practices. HAL is said to require greater metacognitive demands on readers, that is described as a “global level of processing, as opposed to microprocessing” and requires past experiences/knowledge to guide practices using online text (Shapiro & Niederhauser, 2004, p. 3). As a result, researchers have aimed to understand the structures that support effective learning, particularly the differences between well- or ill-definedness and well- or ill-structuredness.
Shapiro & Niederhauser (2004) suggest that system structures and varying learning strategies interact to enrich learning strategies. Part of the importance of knowing the difference is to be able to understand what type of structures work best for a specific type of learner. For instance, learners with limited prior knowledge are said to benefit from well-defined structures such as when material is mapped hierarchically. Inversely, Shapiro & Niederhauser (2004) suggest that ill structures systems are more beneficial for advanced learners. Not only does this information help researcher target specific populations when studying these structures, but helps teachers understand where students may be more or less proficient in hypertext-assisted learning strategies. While teachers can benefit from knowing these distinctions, they must also be careful in thinking about these as strict dichotomies. In other words, advanced learners may not always benefit ill-structured domains, as Shapiro & Niederhauser (2004) suggest that a balance must be found because in this case providing too too little information about structure has the potential to be harmful.
Your point regarding the necessity of providing some structure in ill-defined domains in order to facilitate learning in advanced learners is well taken. That point made me think about novice learners in well structured domains. As Shapiro & Niederhauser (2004) point out, while novice learners DO benefit from well-structured learning environments, it is also necessary to ensure that well-structured domains are not oversimplified or boring. This may lead students to disengage with the activity or adopt engagement profiles which may not be suitable to the adoption of mastery goals. Do you see a way forward where teachers are able to balance the competing demands of a structured, yet engaging learning activity for novices?
Hi Matthew, I’ glad you brought up the point that a well-structured task or activity is not necessarily simple or boring. From what I’ve read in ill-structured problem-solving literature, ill-structured domains or tasks seem to be more effective for advanced stages of learning, as ill-structured tasks typically require greater levels of prior knowledge. Without the requisite knowledge and skills, I agree with Katie’s point that novice learners may be overwhelmed in ill-structured tasks without the appropriate scaffolds. Ill-structured activities, just like well-structured activities, can be scaled up or down in terms of complexity.
Hi, Crystal. You share some interesting ideas here about hypertext-assisted learning. Could you say more about teaching with ill-structured systems, or in ill-structured domains — and how this differs from teaching with well-structured systems, or in well-structured domains? In organizing your response to the prompt, it would be stronger to make sure that you address all of the requested topics. Also, when you write “ Part of the importance of knowing the difference,” what difference are you referencing? What are the “strict dichotomies” you mention?
schellma said
Your point regarding the necessity of providing some structure in ill-defined domains in order to facilitate learning in advanced learners is well taken. That point made me think about novice learners in well structured domains. As Shapiro & Niederhauser (2004) point out, while novice learners DO benefit from well-structured learning environments, it is also necessary to ensure that well-structured domains are not oversimplified or boring. This may lead students to disengage with the activity or adopt engagement profiles which may not be suitable to the adoption of mastery goals. Do you see a way forward where teachers are able to balance the competing demands of a structured, yet engaging learning activity for novices?
Hi, Matthew. Great question!
zhumengd said
Hi Matthew, I’ glad you brought up the point that a well-structured task or activity is not necessarily simple or boring. From what I’ve read in ill-structured problem-solving literature, ill-structured domains or tasks seem to be more effective for advanced stages of learning, as ill-structured tasks typically require greater levels of prior knowledge. Without the requisite knowledge and skills, I agree with Katie’s point that novice learners may be overwhelmed in ill-structured tasks without the appropriate scaffolds. Ill-structured activities, just like well-structured activities, can be scaled up or down in terms of complexity.
Hi, Marissa. Good points!
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
Rand
cainwil1
Ming
Top Posters:
galvins1: 51
richkat3: 50
albertsk: 43
moudgal1: 43
schellma: 41
liraamal: 39
Emilia: 35
zhumengd: 34
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 19
Topics: 97
Posts: 339
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 77
Moderators: 0
Admins: 5
Most Users Ever Online: 58
Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)