Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficacité d’un structurant préalable (l’epitome) en fonction des caractéristiques personnelles des etudiants

The effectiveness of an advance organizer (the epitome) with respect to learners’ personal characteristics

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Résumé

La recherche en matière de structurant préalable commence avec Ausubel (1968). Celui-ci propose de faire précéder un apprentissage par la présentation d’un stimulus susceptible d’aider l’apprenant à organiser logiquement l’information nouvelle en une structure unifiée.

L’épitome, proposé par Reigeluth et Stein (1983), consiste en la présentation, à un niveau concret, directement applicable, des idées fondamentales de la séquence d’apprentissage.

Notre recherche, gérée en majeure partie par micro-ordinateur, tente de dégager les effets de la présentation de l’épitome sur l’apprentissage à court et à moyen terme ainsi que sur la capacité de transfert des compétences acquises.

Les résultats obtenus ne permettent pas de conclure à une efficacité globale de ce type de structurant dans la mesure où les différences rencontrées sont statistiquement non significatives.

Cependant, certains effets d’interaction semblent se dégager entre les caractéristiques personnelles des sujets et la présentation ou non de l’épitome. Certains sujets (niveau de connaissance préalable faible, lecteurs lents, sujets impulsifs, peu confiants) profitent de la présentation de l’épitome, tandis que d’autres (lecteurs rapides) semblent au contraire gênés par celle-ci. Enfin, certaines caractéristiques personnelles des apprenants (indépendance de champ, origine de pouvoir d’action, sexe) ont peu ou pas d’effet.

Abstract

Ausubel (1968) was the first to do research on the advance organizer. He suggested that a learning situation be preceded by the presentation of a stimulus likely to help the learner organize new information logically into a unified structure.

In 1983, reigeluth and Stein introduced the epitome, which consists in presenting the basic ideas of a lesson on a concrete level, directly applicable by the learner.

The aim of our research project, mainly computer-managed, was to determine the short-term and middle-term effects of using the epitome on learning, and on the learner’s ability to transfer his acquired skills.

We cannot conclude from our results that the use of this type of organizer is equally effective for everyone, since the differences observed were statistically non-significant.

However, there do seem to be certain effects of interaction between a learner’s personal characteristics and the use of the epitome. Some subjects (those with a poor level of previous knowledge, slow readers, those with an impulsive character, or little confidence) benefit from the use of the epitome, while others (fast readers) seem, on the contrary, to be bothered by it. Yet other characteristics (field-independence, locus of control, sex) have little or no effect.

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

Références

  • Alexander, L., Frankiewicz, R. G., & Williams, R. E. (1979). Facilitation of learning and retention of oral instruction using advance and post organizers.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 701–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful material.Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1968).Educational psychology — A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics.Review of Educational Research, 48, 251–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P., & Fitzgerald, D. (1961). The role of discriminability in meaningful verbal learning and retention.Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 266–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P., & Fitzgerald, D. (1962). Organizer, general background and antecedent learning variables in sequential verbal learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 243–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P., & Youssef, M. (1963). Role of discriminability in meaningful parallel learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 331–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, B. R., & Clawson, E. V. (1975). Do advance organizers facilitate learning? Recommendations for further research based on analysis of 32 studies.Review of Educational Research, 45, 637–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinet, J., & Tourneur, Y. (1985).Assurer la mesure: Guide pour les études de généralisabilité. Berne: Peter Lang, Coll. Exploration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, R. V., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1984). The use of analogies in written text.Instructional Science, 13, 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davey, B., & Kapinus, B. A. (1985). Prior knowledge and recall of unfamiliar information: Reader and text factors.Journal of Educational Research, 78, 147–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Finetti, B. (1964). Foresight: Its logical laws, its subjective sources. In E. Kyburg & G. Smokies (Eds.),Studies in subjective probability. New York: J. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depover, C. (1985).Contribution à un cadre conceptuel pour un enseignement adaptatif médiatisé par ordinateur. Mise au point et expérimentation de deux dispositifs d’évaluation formative extemporanée. Thèse de doctorat en Sciences Psychopédagogiques, Université de l’Etat, Mons.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Hainaut, L. (1975–1978).Concepts et méthodes de la statistique (Vol. 1–2). Bruxelles: Labor.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Hainaut, L., Noël, B., & Deroubaix, C. (1980).Les activités d’exploration (Recherche en Education, no 16). Bruxelles; Ministère de l’Education Nationale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duquesne, F., & Tourneur, Y. (1985).Laboratoire micro-informatisé et validité des recherches expérimentales en psychopédagogie. Mons: Université de l’Etat, Faculté des Sciences Psycho-pédagogiques.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faw, H. W., & Waller, T. G. (1976). Mathemagenic behaviours and efficiency in learning from prose materials: Review, critique and recommendations.Review of Educational Research, 46, 691–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, D., & Ausubel, D. P. (1963). Cognitive versus affective factors in the learning of and retention of controversial material.Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L. & Holyak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfert.Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, S. M., Beitton, B. K., & Muth, K. D. (1985). Text-comprehension strategies based on outlines: Immediate and long-term effects.Journal of Experimental Education, Spring, 129–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotelueschen, A., & Sjogren, D. D. (1968). Effects of differentially structured introductory materials and learning tasks on learning and transfert.American Educational Research Journal, 5, 191–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J., & 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 

  • Kagan, J. (1965). Impulsive and reflective children: Significance of conceptual tempo. In J. Krumboltz (Ed.),Learning and the Educational Process (pp. 133–161). Chicago: Rand Mc Nally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, J. T., & Fowell, N. (1978). Effects of advance organizers on preschool children’s learning of math concepts.Journal of Experimental Education, 47, 76–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, J. T., & 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 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1978). Advance organizers that compensate for the organization of text.Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 880–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1979a). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning?Review of Educational Research, 49, 371–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1979b). Twenty years of research on advance organizers: Assimilation theory is still the best predictor of results.Instructional Science, 8, 133–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1980). Elaboration techniques that increase the meaningfulness of technical text: An experimental test of the learning strategy hypothesis.Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 770–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Bromage, B. K. (1980). Different recall protocols for technical texts due to advance organizers.Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 209–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component Display Theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional Design Theories and Models: An overview of their current status (pp. 279–333). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research.Journal of Educational Research, 78, 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noël, B. (1983).Le style cognitif. Cours de psychologie différentielle. Mons: Université de l’Etat, Publications du DESTE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, G. C., Tipton, T. J., & Brooks D. W. (1980). Use of introductory organizers in television instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 445–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983a). Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is learned to what a student knows.Instructional Science, 12, 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983b). 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 (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & 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 (pp. 335–381). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scandura, J. M., & Wells, J. N. (1967). Advance organizers in learning abstract mathematics.American Educational Research Journal, 4, 295–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. L. (1984). Effects of learning style and the use of preinstructional strategies on concept mastery.Dissertation Abstracts International (1985), 45, 2469A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Self, J. A. (1974). Student models in computer-aided instruction.International Journal of Man-Machines Studies, 6, 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, W. H., Graves, M. F., & Piche, G. L. (1985). Effets of structural organizers on ninth-grade students’ comprehension and recall of four patterns of expository text.Reading Research Quaterly, 20, 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., & Tirre, W. C. (1980). Individual differences in schema utilization during discourse processing.Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 204–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer studies.Journal of Experimental Education, Summer, 194–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillema, H. (1983). Webteaching: Sequencing of subject matter in relation to prior knowledge of pupils.Instructional Science, 12, 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, S. W., Delaney, H., & Kinnucan, M. (1983). Specifying the nature of reading ability differences and advance organizer effects.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 359–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weil, M., & Murphy, J. (1982). Instruction Processes. In H. Mitzel (Ed.),Encyclopedia of Educational Research (Vol. 2, pp. 890–917), New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winnykamen, F. (1973).Modalités de l’activité du sujet dans l’acquisition de connaissances. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1975).Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Princeton: E. T. S.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de l’Etat, 21, Place du Parc, B-7000, Mons, Belgique

    François-Marie Gérard, François Duquesne & Yvan Tourneur

Authors
  1. François-Marie Gérard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. François Duquesne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yvan Tourneur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gérard, FM., Duquesne, F. & Tourneur, Y. Efficacité d’un structurant préalable (l’epitome) en fonction des caractéristiques personnelles des etudiants. Eur J Psychol Educ 3, 287–301 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172735

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172735

Mots clés

Search

Navigation