Abstract
Does the specific structure of advance organizers influence learning outcomes? In the first experiment, 48 psychology students were randomly assigned to three differently structured advance organizers: a well-structured, a well-structured and key-concept emphasizing, and a less structured advance organizer. These were followed by a sorting task, a text study phase, and a posttest. The results indicated that differently structured advance organizers lead to different proto-schemata before and different learning outcomes after the text study phase. The second experiment replicated and extended these findings with 53 mathematics students. As in experiment 1, three differently structured advance organizers were used; but to rule out alternative explanations, the sorting task between the advance organizer and the text study phase was omitted. The results showed strong beneficial effects of well-structured advance organizers on near and far transfer tasks. Taken together, both experiments support the claim that the structure of advance organizers has an effect on preliminary schemata and learning outcomes. On a general level, the results indicate that advance organizers can support the generation of proto-schemata and thus can be more than the activation of “existing” concepts in long-term memory. With regard to education, this implies that educators should not only think about whether prior domain-specific knowledge is present, but also about how to scaffold the generation of proto-schemata at the beginning of instruction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 313–337.
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315–343.
Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of information in connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 433–440.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267–272.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Azevedo, R., Moos, D., Johnson, A., & Chauncey, A. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 210–223.
Bereiter, C. (1985). Toward a solution of the learning paradox. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 201–226.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corkill, A. J. (1992). Advance organizers: Facilitators of recall. Educational Psychology Review, 4(1), 33–67.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological monographs, 58 (5, Serial no. 113). Example. (n.d.) The American heritage® dictionary of the English language, 4th ed. (2003). Retrieved May 27 2011 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/example.
Example. (n.d.) The American heritage ® dictionary of the English language (4th ed.,2003). Retrieved May 27 2011 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/example.
Furr, R. M., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Evaluating theories efficiently: The nuts and bolts of contrast analysis. Understanding Statistics, 2, 45–67.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395.
Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: new perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334–372.
Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). Prior knowledge activation: How different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science, 38, 417–433.
Harp, S. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.
Hummel, H. G., & Nadolski, R. J. (2002). Cueing for schema construction: Designing problem-solving multimedia practicals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 229–249.
Kauffman, D. F., & Kiewra, K. A. (2009). What makes a matrix so effective? An empirical test of the relative benefits of signaling, extraction, and localization. Instructional Science, 38(6), 679–705.
Kloster, A. M., & Winne, P. H. (1989). The effects of different types of organizers on students’ learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 9–15.
Mayer, R. E. (1979). Twenty years of research on advance organizers: Assimilation theory is still the best predictor of results. Instructional Science, 8(2), 133–167.
McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (1989). Material-appropriate processing: A contextualist approach to reading and studying strategies. Educational Psychology Review, 1(2), 113–145.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and instruction, 14(1), 1–43.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 141–159.
Naumann, J., Richter, T., Flender, J., Christmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2007). Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for deficits in reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 791–807.
Potelle, H., & Rouet, J.-F. (2003). Effects of content representation and readers’ prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 327–345.
Preiss, R. W., & Gayle, B. M. (2006). A meta-analysis of the educational benefits of employing advanced organizers. In B. M. Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 329–344). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 144–161.
Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Teaching students to recognize structural similarities between statistics word problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 325–342.
Rasch, B., Friese, M., Hofmann, W., & Naumann, E. (2004). Quantitative Methoden [Quantitative Methods] (Vol. 1–2). Berlin: Springer.
Rawson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2004). Exploring encoding and retrieval effects of background information on text memory. Discourse Processes, 38(3), 323–344.
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rourke, A., & Sweller, J. (2009). The worked-example effect using ill-defined problems: Learning to recognize designers’ styles. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 185–199.
Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2005). When less is sometimes more: Optimal learning conditions are required for schema acquisition from multiple examples. In Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1943–1948).
Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory models in the processing of science text: The role of prior knowledge activation through small-group discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 610–619.
Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and instruction, 16, 475–5223.
Schwartz, D. L., Sears, D., & Chang, J. (2007). Reconsidering prior knowledge. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 319–344). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Shapiro, A. M. (1999). The relationship between prior knowledge and interactive overviews during hypermedia-aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(2), 143–167.
Shapiro, A. M. (2008). Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 29–44.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.
Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27, 531–541.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gurlitt, J., Dummel, S., Schuster, S. et al. Differently structured advance organizers lead to different initial schemata and learning outcomes. Instr Sci 40, 351–369 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9180-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9180-7