Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 197–218 | Cite as

Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is being learned to what a student knows

  • Charles M. Reigeluth
Article

Abstract

Any comprehensive theory of instruction must include ways to optimize the acquisition, organization, and retrieval of new knowledge. An important concern in this regard is making new knowledge meaningful by relating it to prior knowledge. Although meaningfulness is usually thought of in terms of relating new knowledge to prior superordinate knowledge (as with the advance organizer), there are at least six other kinds of prior knowledge that can facilitate the acquisition, organization, and retrieval of new knowledge. Seven kinds of prior knowledge are described below, followed by a section on instructional strategies that an instructional designer or teacher can use to help optimize the learner's use of the seven kinds of prior knowledge for acquiring, organizing, and retrieving new knowledge.

Keywords

Prior Knowledge Instructional Designer Instructional Strategy Important Concern Comprehensive Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aronson, D. T. and Briggs, L. J. (1983). “Contributions of Gagné and Briggs to a prescriptive model of instruction,” in C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. P. (1964). “Some psychological aspects of the structure of knowledge,” in S. Elam (Ed.), The Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  4. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, S. L. (1973). “The effect of children's question-asking behavior on problem solution and comprehension of written material.” (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1973) Dissertation Abstract International 34: 3129A–3130A (University micro films #73-28-454).Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, A. and Stevens, A. (1983). “A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching,” in C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Craik, F. I. M. and Lockhart, R. S. (1972). “Levels of processing: A framework for memory research,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 671–684.Google Scholar
  9. Craik, F. I. M. and Tulving, E. (1975). “Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104: 268–294.Google Scholar
  10. Crouse, J. H. and Idstein, P. (1972). “Effects of encoding cues on prose learning,” Journal of Educational Psychology 63 (4): 309–313.Google Scholar
  11. Dansereau, D. (1978). “The development of a learning strategies curriculum,” in H. F. O'NeilJr. (Ed.), Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dreistadt, R. (1969). “The use of analogies and incubation in obtaining insight in creative problem solving,” Journal of Psychology 71: 159–175.Google Scholar
  13. Frase, L. T. and Schwartz, B. H. (1975). “Effect of question production and answering on prose recall,” Journal of Educational Psychology 67: 628–635.Google Scholar
  14. Gagné, E. (1978). “Long-term retention of information following learning from prose,” Review of Educational Research 48: 629–655.Google Scholar
  15. Gagné, R. M. (1968). “Learning hierarchies,” Educational Psychologist 6: 1–9.Google Scholar
  16. Gagné, R. M. (1977). The Conditions of Learning (Third ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  17. Gagné, R. M. (1980). “Is educational technology in phase?” Educational Technology 20 (2): 7–14.Google Scholar
  18. Gropper, G. L. (1974). Instructional Strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Gropper, G. L. (1983a). “A behavioral approach to instructional prescription,” in C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Gropper, G. L. (1983b). “A metatheory of instruction: A framework for analyzing and evaluating instructional theories and models,” in C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Landa, L. N. (1983). “The algo-heuristic theory of instruction,” in C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Levin, J. R. (1973). “Inducing comprehension in poor readers,” Journal of Educational Psychology 65: 19–24.Google Scholar
  23. Levin, J. R. (1981). “The mnemonic '80s: Keywords in the classroom,” Educational Psychologist 16 (2): 65–82.Google Scholar
  24. Lindsay, P. H. and Norman, D. A. (1977). Human Information Processing: An Introduction to Psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Markle, S. M. and Tiemann, P. W. (1969). Really Understanding Concepts: Or in Frumious Pursuit of the Jobberwock. Chicago: Tiemann Assoc.Google Scholar
  26. Mayer, R. E. (1976). “Integration of information during problem solving due to a meaningful context of learning,” Memory & Cognition 4: 603–608.Google Scholar
  27. Mayer, R. E. (1977). “The sequencing of instruction and the concept of assimilation-to-schema,” Instructional Science 6: 369–388.Google Scholar
  28. Mayer, R. E. (1979). “Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning?” Review of Educational Research 49: 371–383.Google Scholar
  29. Merrill, M. D. (1983). “The component display theory,” in C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Merrill, M. D. and Boutwell, R. C. (1973). “Instructional Development Methodology and Research,” in F. N. Kerlinger (Ed.), Review of Research in Education. Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Merrill, M. D. and Tennyson, R. D. (1977). Teaching Concepts: An Instructional Design Guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Merrill, M. D. and Wood, N. D. (1974). Instructional Strategies: A Preliminary Taxonomy. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service) (No. SE 018–771).Google Scholar
  33. Merrill, M. D. and Wood, N. D. (1975). rules for Effective Instructional Strategies (Instructional Design Series). San Diego: Courseware, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Merrill, M. D., Olsen, J. B. and Coldeway, N. A. (1976). Research Support for the Instructional Strategy Diagnostic Profile (Technical Report Series, No. 3). Provo, Utah: Courseware, Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Merrill, M. D., Reigeluth, C. M. and Faust, G. W. (1979). “The instructional quality profile: A curriculum evaluation and design tool,” in H. F. O'NeilJr. (Ed.), Procedures for Instructional System Development. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Merrill, M. D., Richards, R. E., Schmidt, R. V. and Wood, N. D. (1977). The Instructional Strategy Diagnostic Profile Training Manual. San Diego, CA: Courseware, Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Merrill, P. F. (1980). “Analysis of a procedural task,” NSPI Journal 19 (1): 11–15.Google Scholar
  38. Merrill, P. F. (1971). “Task analysis — an information processing approach,” Technical Memo No. 27. Florida State University. Also in NSPI Journal 15 (2): 7–11.Google Scholar
  39. Norman, D. A. (1972). Memory, Knowledge, and the Answering of Questions (Report No. 25). San Diego: Center for Human Information Processing, University of California.Google Scholar
  40. Norman, D. A. (1973). Cognitive Organization and Learning (Report No. 37). San Diego: Center for Human Information Processing, University of California.Google Scholar
  41. O'Neil, H. F.Jr. (Ed.) (1978). Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. O'Neil, H. F.Jr. (Ed.) (1979). Cognitive and Affective Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ortony, A., Reynolds, R. E. and Arter, J. (1978). “Metaphor: Theoretical and empirical research,” Psychological Bulletin 18: 919–943.Google Scholar
  44. Owens, A. M. (1977). “The effects of question generation, question answering, and reading on prose learning.” (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1976). Dissertation Abstract International 37: 5709A–5710A. (University microfilms No. 77-5740).Google Scholar
  45. Pressley, M., Levin, J. and Miller, G. (1981). “How does the keyword method affect vocabulary comprehension and usage?” Reading Research Quarterly 16: 213–226.Google Scholar
  46. Raven, R. J. and Cole, R. (1978). “Relationships between Piaget's operative, comprehensive and physiology modeling processes of community college students,” Science Education 62 (4): 481–489.Google Scholar
  47. Reigeluth, C. M. (1979). “In search of a better way to organize instruction: The elaboration theory,” Journal of Instructional Development 2 (3): 8–15.Google Scholar
  48. Reigeluth, C. M. (1980). Toward a Common Knowledge Base: The Evolution of Instructional Science. (Research Report No. 3). Syracuse: Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation Program, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  49. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). “Instructional design: What is it and why is it?” in C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Reigeluth, C. M. and Darwazeh, A. (1982). “The elaboration theory's procedure for designing instruction: A conceptual approach,” Journal of Instructional Development 5 (3): 22–32.Google Scholar
  51. Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D. and Bunderson, C. V. (1978). “The structure of subject matter content and its instructional design implications,” Instructional Science 7: 107–126.Google Scholar
  52. Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., Wilson, B. G. and Spiller, R. T. (1978). Final Report on the Structural Strategy Diagnostic Profile Project. Submitted to the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, CA, July 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 175 426).Google Scholar
  53. Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., Wilson, B. G. and Spiller, R. T. (1980). “The elaboration theory of instruction: A model for structuring instruction,” Instructional Science 9: 195–219.Google Scholar
  54. Reigeluth, C. M. and Rodgers, C. A. (1980). “The elaboration theory of instruction: Prescriptions for task analysis and design,” NSPI Journal 19 (1): 16–26.Google Scholar
  55. Reigeluth, C. M. and Stein, F. S. (1983). “The elaboration theory of instruction,” in C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. Rigney, J. W. (1978). “Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective,” in H. F. O'NeilJr. (Ed.), Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ritchey, G. H. and Beal, C. R. (1980). “Image detail and recall: Evidence for within-item elaboration,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 6: 66–76.Google Scholar
  58. Rothkopf, E. (1976). “Writing to teach and reading to learn: A perspective on the psychology of written instruction,” in N. L. Gage (Ed.), The Psychology of Teaching Methods. Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  59. Sari, I. F. and Reigeluth, C. M. (1982). “Writing and evaluating textbooks: Contributions from instructional theory,” in D. Jonassen (Ed.), Technology of Text: Principles for Structuring, Designing, and Displaying Text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Scandura, J. M. (1983). “Instructional strategies based on the structural learning theory,” in C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Scandura, J. M. (1973). Structural Learning I: Theory and Research. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. Weinstein, C. E. (1978). “Elaboration skills as a learning strategy,” in H. F. O'NeilJr. (Ed.), Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Science Publishers B.V 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles M. Reigeluth
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationSyracuse UniversitySyracuseU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations