Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 133–167 | Cite as

Twenty years of research on advance organizers: Assimilation theory is still the best predictor of results

  • Richard E. Mayer
Article

Abstract

Forty-four published research studies involving advance organizers were reviewed. Twenty-seven studies included an advance organizer vs. a control group (standard advance organizer study) and 17 studies included an advance organizer vs. a post organizer group (modified advance organizer study). Results of the studies were compared to the predictions of several theories. In addition, four specific predictions of assimilation theory were evaluated: that advance organizers should have a stronger effect for poorly organized text than for well organized text, that advance organizers should have a stronger positive effect for learners lacking prerequisite knowledge, that advance organizers should have a stronger effect for learners lacking prerequisite abilities, and that advance organizers should have an especially strong effect on measures of transfer rather than retention.

Keywords

Research Study Good Predictor Organizer Group Organizer Study Specific Prediction 
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. Allen, D.I. (1970). “Some effects of advance organizers and level of question on the learning and retention of written social studies material,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 61: 333–339.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, L.K. (1971). “Directed reading question and cognitive organizer: Comparative effect on reading comprehension,” Research in the Teaching of English, 5: 79–83.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, L. (1973). “Reading comprehension and three modes of prereading assistance,” Journal of Reading Behavior, 5: 237–241.Google Scholar
  4. Ausubel, D.P. (1960). “The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 51: 267–272.Google Scholar
  5. Ausubel, D.P. (1962). “A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning and retention,” Journal of General Psychology, 66: 213–221.Google Scholar
  6. Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  7. Ausubel, D.P. (1977). “The facilitation of meaningful verbal learning in the classroom,” Educational Psychologist, 12: 162–178.Google Scholar
  8. Ausubel, D.P. and Fitzgerald, D. (1961). “The role of discriminability in meaningful verbal learning and retention,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 52: 266–274.Google Scholar
  9. Ausubel, D. P. and Fitzgerald, D. (1962). “Organizer, general background, and antecedent learning variables in sequential verbal learning,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 53: 243–249;Google Scholar
  10. Ausubel, D.P. and Youssef, M. (1963). “Role of discriminability in meaningful parallel learning,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 54: 331–336.Google Scholar
  11. Barnes, B. R. and Clawson, E. U. (1975). “Do advance organizers facilitate learning? Recommendations for further research based on an analysis of 32 studies,” Review of Educational Research, 45: 637–659.Google Scholar
  12. Barron, R.E. (1972). “Effects of advance organizers and grade level upon learning and retention of general science content,” in: Twenty-First Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 8–15.Google Scholar
  13. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bertou, P. D., Clasen, R. E. and Lambert, P. (1972) “An analysis of the relative efficacy of advance organizers, post organizers, interspersed questions, and combinations thereof in facilitating learning and retention from a televised lecture,” Journal of Educational Research, 65: 329–333.Google Scholar
  15. Blanton, B.E. (1972). “Reception learning and advanced organizers: Implications for reading research,” National Reading Conference, 21: 3–7.Google Scholar
  16. Buyuk, R. J., Proger, B. B. and Mann, L. (1970). “Organization of meaningful verbal material,” Psychology in the Schools, 7: 365–369.Google Scholar
  17. Bransford, J.D. and Johnson, M.K. (1972). “Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 717–726.Google Scholar
  18. Christie, D.J. and Schumacher, G.M. (1976). “Some conditions surrounding the effectiveness of advance organizers for children's retention of orally presented prose,” Journal of Reading Behavior, 8: 299–309.Google Scholar
  19. Clawson, E.U. and Barnes, B.R. (1973). “The effects of organizers on the learning of structured anthropology materials in the elementary grades,” Journal of Experimental Education, 42: 11–15.Google Scholar
  20. Cunningham, D.J., Pastore, N. and Mizokawa, D.T. (1974). “Developmental differences in using a superordinate context for the learning and retention of facts,” Journal of Reading Behavior, 6: 225–232.Google Scholar
  21. Dooling, D.J. and Lachman, R. (1971). “Effects of comprehension on retention of prose,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88: 216–222.Google Scholar
  22. Dooling, D.J. and Mullet, R.L. (1973). “Locus of thematic effects on retention of prose,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97: 404–406.Google Scholar
  23. Dwyer, F.M. (1971). “Questions as advanced organizers in visualized instruction,” Journal of Psychology, 78: 261–264.Google Scholar
  24. Eastman, P.M. (1977). “The use of advance organizers for facilitating learning and transfer from quadratic inequalities,” School Science and Mathematics, 77: 377–384.Google Scholar
  25. Fitzgerald, D. and Ausubel, D.P. (1963). “Cognitive versus affective factors in the learning of and retention of controversial material,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 54: 73–84.Google Scholar
  26. Gagné, R. M. (1969). “Context, isolation and interference effects on the retention of facts,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 60: 408–414.Google Scholar
  27. Gagné, R.M. and Wiegand, V. (1970). “Effects of a superordinate context on learning and retention of facts,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 61: 406–409.Google Scholar
  28. Graber, R. A., Means, R. S. and Johnson, T. D. (1972). “The effect of subsuming concepts on student achievement on unfamiliar science learning material,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9: 277–279.Google Scholar
  29. Grotelueschen, A. and Sjogren, D. D. (1968). “Effects of differentially structured introductory materials and learning tasks on learning and transfer,” American Educational Research Journal, 5: 191–202.Google Scholar
  30. Hansell, T.S. (1976). “Increasing understanding in context reading,” Journal of Reading, 19: 307–310.Google Scholar
  31. Hartley, J. and Davies, I.K. (1976). “Preinstructional strategies: The role of pretests, behavioral objectives, overviews and advance organizers,” Review of Educational Research, 46: 239–265.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, E.E. (1977). “The effects of advance organizers prepared for specific ability levels,” School Science and Mathematics, 77: 385–390.Google Scholar
  33. Kahle, J. B. and Nordland, F. M. (1975). “The effect of an advanced organizer when utilized with carefully sequenced audio-tutorial units,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12: 63–67.Google Scholar
  34. Kahle, J.B. and Rastovac, J.J. (1976). “The effect of a series of advanced organizers in increasing meaningful learning,” Science Education, 60: 365–371.Google Scholar
  35. Kintsch, W. (1974). The Representation of Meaning in Memory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Koran, J. et al. (1975) “Research on college science teaching. Part II: Findings and implications for practice,” Journal of College Science Teaching, 5: 118–120.Google Scholar
  37. Koran, J.J. and Koran, M.L. (1973). “Differential response to structure of advance organizers in science instruction,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10: 347–353.Google Scholar
  38. Kozminsky, E. (1977). “Altering comprehension: The effect of biasing titles on text comprehension,” Memory and Cognition, 5: 482–490.Google Scholar
  39. Kuhn, D.J. and Novak, J.D. (1970). “A study of varying modes of topical presentation in elementary college biology to determine the effect of advanced organizers in knowledge acquisition and retention,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7: 249–253.Google Scholar
  40. Kuhn, D. J. and Novak, J. D. (1971). “A study of cognitive subsumption in the life sciences,” Science Education, 55: 309–320.Google Scholar
  41. Lawton, J. T. (1977). “The development of causal and logical connectives in children,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47: 81–84.Google Scholar
  42. Lawton, J. T. and Wanska, S. K. (1977). “Advance organizers as a teaching strategy: A reply to Barnes and Clawson,” Review of Educational Research, 47: 233–244.Google Scholar
  43. Lesh, R.A. (1976a). “An interpretation of advanced organizers,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7: 69–74.Google Scholar
  44. Lesh, R.A. (1976b). “The influence of two types of advanced organizers on an instructional un unit about finite groups,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7: 87–91.Google Scholar
  45. Lesh, R.A. (1976c). “The influence of an advanced orgaizer on two types of instructional units about finite geometries,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7: 82–86.Google Scholar
  46. Lesh, R.A. and Johnson, M. (1976). “Models and applications as advanced organizers,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7: 75–81.Google Scholar
  47. Mayer, R.E. (1975a). “Information processing variables in learning to solve problems,” Review of Educational Research, 45: 525–541.Google Scholar
  48. Mayer, R.E. (1975b). “Different problem solving compentencies established in learning computer programming with and without meaningful models,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 67: 725–734.Google Scholar
  49. Mayer, R.E. (1976a). “Some conditions of meaningful learning of computer programming: Advance organizers and subject control of frame sequencing,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 68: 143–150.Google Scholar
  50. Mayer, R.E. (1976b). “Integration of information during problem solving due to a meaningful context of learning,” Memory and Cognition, 4: 603–608.Google Scholar
  51. Mayer, R.E. (1977a). “The sequencing of instruction and the concept of assimilation-to-schema,” Instructional Science, 6: 369–388.Google Scholar
  52. Mayer, R.E. (1977b). “Different rule systems for counting behavior acquired in meaning-ful and rote contexts of learning,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 69: 537–546.Google Scholar
  53. Mayer, R. E. (1978). “Advance organizers that compensate for the organization of text,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 71: 880–886.Google Scholar
  54. Mayer, R. E. (1979). “Qualitatively different encoding strategies for linear reasoning premises: Evidence for single association and distance theories,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5: 1–10.Google Scholar
  55. Mayer, R. E. and Bromage, B. (in press). “Different recall protocols for technical text due to sequencing of advance organizers,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 71.Google Scholar
  56. Mayer, R. E., Stiehl, C. C. and Greeno, J. G. (1975). “Acquisition of understanding and skill in relation to subjects' preparation and meaningfulness of instruction,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 67: 331–250.Google Scholar
  57. Merril, M. D. and Stolurow, L. M. (1966). “Hierarchical preview vs. problem oriented review in learning an imaginary science,” American Educational Research Journal, 3: 251–261.Google Scholar
  58. Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  59. Novak, J. D., Ring, D. C. and Tamir, P. (1971). “Interpretation of research findings in terms of Ausubel's theory and implications for science education,” Science Education, 54: 483–526.Google Scholar
  60. Pella, M.O. and Triezenberg, M.J. (1969). “Three levels of abstraction of the concept of equilibrium and its use as an advance organizer,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6: 11–21.Google Scholar
  61. Peterson, J. C., Thomas, M. L., Lovett, C. J. and Bright, G. W. (1973). “The effect of organizers and knowledge of behavioral objectives on learning a mathematical concept,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 4: 76–84.Google Scholar
  62. Pichert, J.W. and Anderson, R.C. (1977). “Taking different perspectives on a story,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 69: 309–315.Google Scholar
  63. Proger, B. B., Taylor, R., Mann, L., Coulson, J. M. and Bayuk, R. J. (1970). “Conceptual pre-structures for detailed verbal passages,” Journal of Educational Research, 64: 28–34.Google Scholar
  64. Proger, B.B., Carter, C.E., Mann, L., Taylor, R.G., Bayuk, R.J., Morris, V.R., and Reckless, D. E. (1973). “Advance and concurrent organizers for detailed verbal passages used with elementary school pupils,” Journal of Educational Research, 66: 451–456.Google Scholar
  65. Resnick, L. B. (1976). “Task Analysis in Instructional Design: Some Cases from Mathematics,” in D., Klahr (ed.), Cognition and Instruction. New York: Wiley-Halsted.Google Scholar
  66. Rickards, J.P. (1975–1976). “Processing effects of advance organizers interspersed in text,” Reading Research Quarterly, 11: 599–622.Google Scholar
  67. Rickards, J.P. and McCormick, C.B. (1977). “Whole versus part presentation of advance organizers in text,” Journal of Educational Research, 70: 147–149.Google Scholar
  68. Ring, D. G. and Novak, J. D. (1971). “Effects of Cognitive structure variables on achievement in college chemistry,” Journal of Research in Science Education, 8: 325–333.Google Scholar
  69. Romberg, T. A. and Wilson, J. W. (1973). “The effect of advanced organizer, cognitive set, and post organizer on the learning and retention of written materials,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 4: 68–75.Google Scholar
  70. Santiesteban, A.J. and Koran, J.J. (1977). “Instructional adjuncts and learning science from written materials,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14: 51–55.Google Scholar
  71. Scandura, J.M. (1966a). “Problem solving and prior learning,” Journal of Experimental Education, 34: 7–11.Google Scholar
  72. Scandura, J.M. (1966b). “Prior learning, presentation order and prerequisite practice in problem solving,” Journal of Experimental Education, 34: 12–18.Google Scholar
  73. Scandura, J.M. and Wells, J.N. (1967). “Advance organizers in learning abstract mathematics,” American Educational Research Journal, 4: 295–301.Google Scholar
  74. Schallert, D.L. (1976). “Improving memory for prose: The relationship between depth of processing and context,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15: 621–633.Google Scholar
  75. Schnell, T. R. (1973). “The effect of organizers on reading comprehension of community college freshmen,” Journal of Reading Behavior: 169–176.Google Scholar
  76. Schumacher, G.M., Liebert, D. and Fass, W. (1975). “Textual organization, advance organizers and the retention of prose material,” Journal of Reading Behavior, 7: 173–180.Google Scholar
  77. Singer, H. and Rhodes, A. (1975). “Learning from text: A review of theories, strategies and research at the high school level,” National Reading Conference, 25: 22–51.Google Scholar
  78. Smith, R.J. and Hesse, K.D. (1969). “The effects of prereading assistance on the comprehension and attitudes of good and poor readers,” Research on the Teaching of English, 3: 166–167.Google Scholar
  79. Vacca, R.T. (1977). “Readiness to read content area assignments,” Journal of Reading, 20: 387–392.Google Scholar
  80. Weisberg, J.S. (1970). “The use of visual advance organizers for learning earth science concepts,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7: 161–165.Google Scholar
  81. West, L.H.T. and Fensham, P.J. (1976). “Prior knowledge or advance organizers as effective variables in chemical learning,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13: 297–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard E. Mayer
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations