David P Ausubel
Meaningful verbal Learning
Ausubel's
"meaningful reception learning"
Introduction
to Ausubel's theory
You probably noticed that Ausubel's
theory has at least one thing in common with Gagne's: that it concerns itself
primarily with intentional, or "school" learning. In that way, both
theories differ from behaviorism and cognitive information processing, which
attempt to explain aspects of all human learning or memory. Thus, Ausubel's
theory, like Gagne's, suggests how teachers or instructional designers can best
arrange the conditions that facilitate learning for students.
The overarching idea in Ausubel's
theory is that knowledge is hierarchically organized; that new
information is meaningful to the extent that it can be related (attached,
anchored) to what is already known.
Ausubel stresses meaningful
learning, as opposed to rote learning or memorization; and reception, or
received knowledge, rather than discovery learning. (Ausubel did not contend
that discovery learning doesn't work; but rather that it was not efficient.)
The
processes of meaningful learning
Ausubel proposed four processes by
which meaningful learning can occur:
Derivative subsumption. This describes the situation in which the new information
you learn is an instance or example of a concept that you have already learned.
So, let's suppose you have acquired a basic concept such as "tree".
You know that a tree has a trunk, branches, green leaves, and may have some
kind of fruit, and that, when fully grown is likely to be at least 12 feet
tall. Now you learn about a kind of tree that you have never seen before, let's
say a persimmon tree, that conforms to your previous understanding of tree.
Your new knowledge of persimmon trees is attached to your concept of tree,
without substantially altering that concept in any way. So, an Ausubelian would
say that you had learned about persimmon trees through the process of
derivative subsumption.
Correlative subsumption. Now, let's suppose you encounter a new kind of tree that
has red leaves, rather than green. In order to accommodate this new
information, you have to alter or extend your concept of tree to include the
possibility of red leaves. You have learned about this new kind of tree through
the process of correlative subsumption. In a sense, you might say that this is
more "valuable" learning than that of derivative subsumption, since
it enriches the higher-level concept.
Superordinate learning. Imagine that you were well acquainted with maples, oaks,
apple trees, etc., but you did not know, until you were taught, that these were
all examples of deciduous trees. In this case, you already knew a lot of
examples of the concept, but you did not know the concept itself until it was
taught to you. This is superordinate learning.
Combinatorial learning. The first three learning processes all involve new
information that "attaches" to a hierarchy at a level that is either
below or above previously acquired knowledge. Combinatorial learning is
different; it describes a process by which the new idea is derived from another
idea that is neither higher nor lower in the hierarchy, but at the same level
(in a different, but related, "branch"). You could think of this as
learning by analogy. For example, to teach someone about pollination in plants,
you might relate it to previously acquired knowledge of how fish eggs are
fertilized.
Instructional
implications of Ausubel's theory
Ausubel's theory is not particularly
in vogue today, perhaps because he seems to advocate a fairly passive role for
the learner, who receives mainly verbal instruction that has been arranged so
as to require a minimal amount of "struggle". Nevertheless, there are
some aspects of his theory that you might find interesting.
The advance organizer. This seems to be the most enduring Ausubelian idea, even
though it can be tricky to implement. There is a fair amount of intuitive
appeal to the notion of epitomizing an idea before trying to teach the details.
We've all had the experience of needing to understand the "big
picture" before we can make sense of the details. You could think of the
advance organizer as Ausubel's notion of how to provide this.
The comparative organizer. How do we remember concepts and keep them from fading or
being lost into higher-level ideas? Ausubel proposed the comparative organizer
as a way of enhancing the discriminability of ideas; i.e., permitting one to
discriminate a concept from other closely related ones. A comparative organizer
allows you to easily see the similarities and differences in a set of related
ideas.
Progressive differentiation. According to Ausubel, the purpose of progressive
differentiation is to increase the stability and clarity of anchoring ideas.
The basic idea here is that, if you're teaching three related topics A, B, and
C, rather than teaching all of topic A, then going on to B, etc., you would
take a spiral approach. That is, in your first pass through the material, you
would teach the "big" ideas (i.e., those highest in the hierarchy) in
all three topics, then on successive passes you would begin to elaborate the
details. Along the way you would point out principles that the three topics had
in common, and things that differentiated them.
Schema
theory
Why
do we need schema theory?
Suppose you overheard the following
conversation between two college-age apartment-mates:
A: Did you order it?
B: Yeah, it will be here in about 45 minutes.
A: Oh... Well, I've got to leave before then. But save me a couple of slices,
okay? And a beer or two to wash them down with?
Do you know what the roommates are
talking about? Chances are, you're pretty sure they are discussing a pizza they
have ordered. But how can you know this? You've never heard this exact
conversation, so you're not recalling it from memory. And none of the defining
qualities of pizza are represented here, except that it is usually served in
slices, which is also true of many other things.
The other theories we've looked at
in this course would have a difficult time explaining how we can comprehend
this conversation. Schema theory would suggest that we understand this because
we have activated our schema for pizza (or perhaps our schema for
"ordering pizza for delivery") and used that schema to comprehend
this scenario.
In our discussions of CIP and
Ausubel, it may have seemed as if the learner was relatively passive. New
knowledge gets "slotted" somewhere in the brain, but neither theory
seems to emphasize how that knowledge gets used. Schema theory, on the other
hand, attempts to address specifically how we actively make meaning of
information.
What
is a schema?
A schema (plural schemata) is a
hypothetical mental structure for representing generic concepts stored in
memory. It's a sort of framework, or plan, or script. According to Stein and
Trabasso (1982), schemata are thought to have these features:
·
Schemata are composed of generic or
abstract knowledge; used to guide encoding, organization, and retrieval of
information.
·
Schemata reflect prototypical
properties of experiences encountered by an individual, integrated over many
instances.
·
A schema may be formed and used
without the individual's conscious awareness.
·
Although schemata are assumed to
reflect an individual's experience, they are also assumed to be shared across
individuals (at least within a culture).
·
Once formed, schemata are thought to
be relatively stable over time.
·
We know more about how schemata are
used than we do about how they are acquired.
Driscoll suggests that a schema is
analogous to:
·
A play, in that it has a basic
script, but each time it's performed, the details will differ.
·
A theory, in that it enables us to
make predictions from incomplete information, by filling in the missing details
with "default values." (Of course, this can be a problem when it
causes us to remember things we never actually saw...)
·
A computer program, in that it enables
us to actively evaluate and parse incoming information.
We all have a schema for going to a
sit-down restaurant. We are usually greeted by a hostess and seated. A server
comes and take our order for drinks and food. The food is delivered, we eat, we
pay and we leave. Every time we go into a restaurant, we invoke that schema and
it helps us to know what comes next.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always
work.
Joyce and her husband were in
Atlanta some years ago to see Shakespeare in the Park. They had never been in
this particular part of Atlanta before but saw a building with a bright red and
white striped awning and a surmised correctly that they could eat there before
moving on to Oglethorpe University. They were greeted and seated. The server
came to take their drink order, dropped them off and then never came back!
After some time had elapsed, they flagged him down.
"Ooooh! You've never eaten here
before!!?"
"No."
"Well, you see those
refrigerators back there? You pick your cut of beef and grill it on the indoor
grill."
Obviously schema can both facilitate
and not facilitate learning.
How
are schemata created and modified?
Schemata are created through
experience with people, objects, and events in the world. When we encounter
something repeatedly, such as a restaurant, we begin to generalize across our
restaurant experiences to develop an abstracted, generic set of expectations
about what we will encounter in a restaurant. This is useful, because if
someone tells you a story about eating in a restaurant, they don't have to
provide all of the details about being seated, giving their order to the
server, leaving a tip at the end, etc., because your schema for the restaurant
experience can fill in these missing details.
Sometimes, details get filled in
incorrectly. For example, Elizabeth Loftus did some research examining people's
recall for details after watching films of car accidents. Two groups of people
saw exactly the same tape of a car accident. Both groups were asked a series of
factual questions after the accident with only one difference - one of the
groups was asked "How fast were the cars going when they bumped into each
other?" the other was asked "How fast were the cars going when they
crashed into one another?" The group who got the "crashed"
question was twice as likely to recall broken class at a later session (when
indeed there had been none) than the group with the bumped question. Thus, our
schemas help us fill in details which may never have been present in the
original situation.
Not all of the information we have
about an experience necessarily gets added to our schema. For example, there's
a restaurant in Indianapolis where the seating booths are little jail cells.
After you're seated, the server closes your cell doors. (Of course, you can
escape any time you want, as long as you've paid your bill.) Even though you
may go to this restaurant several times, your restaurant schema may still not
include tables as miniature jail cells. This information is simply an outlier;
it may be too unlike your experience at other restaurants.
Three processes are proposed to
account for the modification of schemata:
·
Accretion: New information is remembered in the context of an existing
schema, without altering that schema. For example, suppose you go to a
bookstore, and everything you experience there is consistent with your
expectations for a bookstore "experience." You can remember the
details of your visit, but since they match your existing schema, they don't
really alter that schema in any significant way. (Note that this is
analogous to Ausubel's derivative subsumption.)
·
Tuning: New information or experience cannot be fully accommodated
under an existing schema, so the schema evolves to become more consistent with
experience. For example, when you first encountered a bookstore with a coffee
bar, you probably had to modify your bookstore schema to accommodate this
experience. (Note that this is analogous to Ausubel's correlative
subsumption.)
·
Restructuring: When new information cannot be accommodated merely by
tuning an existing schema, it results in the creation of new schema. For
example, your experience with World Wide Web-based bookstores may be so
different from your experience with conventional ones that you are forced to
create a new schema. (Note that this may be similar to Ausubel's
superordinate learning, or combinatorial learning, depending on the situation.)
What
are mental models?
Mental models goes beyond schema
theory to include perceptions of task demands and task performances. Mental
models researchers are interested in how people perform tasks and solve
problems in school settings and in the real world. (You can think of
problem-solving as including both knowledge of schemata and knowledge of
procedures.) This kind of research has been most prevalent in the sciences and
mathematics.
Why
are schema theory and mental models important in teaching and learning?
It's important to understand that
schemata are powerful forces in learning. In an article on the role of schemata
in story comprehension, Stein and Trabasso (1982) noted that:
·
Schematic knowledge has a
significant effect on organization of ambiguous or disorganized stories.
·
Narrative schemata specify expected
components of a story, such as the time sequence of events, and causal
relations that should connect the events; during encoding or retrieval of a
story, missing events may be inferred to fill in omitted information, and
events may be reordered to correspond to a real-time sequence.
·
Many studies have shown that the use
of schematic knowledge is so powerful that listeners have little control over
the retrieval strategies used during recall of narrative information; even when
listeners are instructed to reproduce texts verbatim, they cannot do so when
the text contains certain types of omissions or certain sequences of events.
For example, consider the following
excerpt from a story:
The girl sat looking at her piggy bank. "Old
friend," she thought, "this hurts me." A tear rolled down her
cheek. She hesitated, then picked up her tap shoe by the toe and raised her
arm. Crash! Pieces of Piggo--that was its name--rained in all directions. She
closed her eyes for a moment to block out the sight. Then she began to do what
she had to do.
If you have a well-developed schema
for "piggy banks", this story should be readily comprehensible. You
would understand that traditional piggy banks were usually made of some
fragile, brittle material, that they contained a slot for inserting and saving
coins, and that the money could only be removed by breaking them.
On the other hand, if you have no
schema for piggy bank, the story probably makes little sense, like the one
below.
The procedure is actually quite
simple. First, you arrange things into different groups. Of course, one pile
may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go
somewhere else due to lack of facilities, that is the next step; otherwise, you
are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is
better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short run this may
not seem important but complications can easily arise. A mistake can be
expensive as well. At first, the whole procedure will seem complicated. Soon,
however, it will become just another fact of life. It is difficult to foresee
any end to the necessity for this task in the immediate future, but then one
can never tell. After the procedure is completed one arranges the materials
into different groups again. Then they can be put into their appropriate
places. Eventually they will be used once more and the whole cycle will then
have the be repeated. However, that is a part of life.
Did you notice yourself looking for
details which would key you to use the right schema? We feel quite disoriented
when a schema cannot be activated.
What
are some implications of schema theory and mental models research for
instruction?
Schema theory:
·
Provide unifying themes for content,
since information that lacks a theme can be difficult to comprehend, or, worse,
the learner may "accrete" the information to the wrong schema, like
the unlabeled washing machine story above. I'll bet you were waiting in
anticipation for that answer. Your schema of teacher includes "will share
the right answer (eventually!)".
·
Choose texts with
"standard" arrangement so that they conform to student expectations.
·
Encourage students to read titles
and headings.
·
Point out the structure of
particular kinds of texts; e.g., what are the common features of published
research articles?
·
Ask questions to determine what
students' current schemata might be.
·
Pay attention to student answers and
remarks that may give clues about how they are organizing information; i.e.,
what schemata are they using?
Mental models (particularly from
mathematics and science):
·
Identify students' current
"theories" or algorithms.
·
Use student errors as a source of
information about their mental models.
·
Use "think aloud"
activities, since these help to uncover current models.
·
Model real problem-solving for
students. Students need to see that solving problems is not just a matter of
plugging numbers into an algorithm; rather it is a matter of determining the
kind of problem so that an algorithm can be successfully applied.
·
Explicitly teach problem-solving
strategies.
·
Focus on processes, structures, and
decisions, not answers.
·
Provide a mix of problem types,
rather than grouping problems of one type; otherwise, students won't develop
skill at determining problem type.
·
Confront incomplete or inaccurate
schemata (particularly in science) with problems or outcomes that don't match
what the learners expect to happen. Use them as a basis for discussion ensuring
that tuning and restructuring are occurring to bring the schema more in line
with scientific knowledge. See http://www.talariainc.com/facet
for a whole list of misconceptions in teaching physics (click on "Facets
of thinking in physics" or "What are facets and facet
clusters?".
To be completed by Friday July 12
There will be no formal facilitator
or wrapper this week.
Unit 4 presents a complex problem
for discussion. To facilitate a more meaningful and personal synthesis, you
will complete the initial discussion activity in smaller groups. Thus, there
will be no formal facilitator or wrapper this week. But, your group will be responsible
for posting a synthesis to the main discussion forum by Friday, July 12.
Both synchronous (chat) and
asynchronous (discussion forum) tools have been set up for you in Oncourse. Use
whichever (or both) will help facilitate the completion of your synthesis. If
you choose to communicate via email and/or outside of Oncourse, forward the
instructors copies of your group communications, as always.
Anderson, Sheldon and Dubay (1990)
studied college students' conceptions of respiration (which is the chemical and
physical processes by which oxygen and carbohydrates are used to produce energy
for an organism) and photosynthesis (which is the production of food by plants,
a part of the energy production cycle for plants) at the beginning and at the
end of a year-long biology course. At the beginning of the course, students
offered grossly deficient answers, even though most students had had one or
more years of biology previously. When asked on a pretest for a definition of
respiration, few students mentioned energy, offering in many cases, simplistic
definitions such as the following: " Exhaling CO2 for humans, exhaling O2
for plants"; "breathing"; "has lungs to breath with";
and "air in, air out". The same held true for pretest definitions of
photosynthesis, another chemical process producing energy conversion. A
minority of students mentioned food or energy in their definitions. What is
probably more disturbing is that at the end of the course, many students still
had misconceptions. Almost 25% had little idea about the nature of respiration;
20% did not understand that the essence of food is that it provides energy for
metabolism and materials for growth; 40 % did not completely understand that
plants make their own food; and more than 50% failed to understand that animals
obtain energy from food and plants obtain energy from sunlight.
On the other hand, read this summary
about some research by Clements and his colleagues (1987). High school physics
students received instruction about forces exerted by static objects,
frictional forces, and Newton's third law of collisions (i.e., if one object
exerts a force on a second object, the second exerts an equal and opposite
force on the first). Students in the treatment classes were presented anchoring
intuitions, which were discussed. For the example of a rigid table's exerting
force on a book that was lying on it (i.e., of a force exerted by a static
object), students considered how a book might cause a piece of foam rubber to
sag if placed on it, or how a book might bend a "table" made of
flexible board (with the bending becoming less and less apparent as the board
is thickened until the point when it is the thickness of a conventional table
board). Students also reflected on how a spring would compress if a book were
on it, and they experienced the force they exerted to hold a book in the palm
of their hand. Although it took a number of discussions and bridging analogies
to make the point, students in the classes using these analogies were better
able to solve posttest problems involving forces exerted by static objects than
were students receiving conventional instruction, with this advantage apparent
even two months after instruction.
So, what do both of these examples
have to do with the material in the readings for this unit? What might
differences in instruction have to do with differences in outcomes? What
recommendations might you make to the teacher in the first scenario given the
theories introduced in the current chapter? What cautions might you include in
the use of these instructional manipulations (i.e., analogies, refuting of
commonly held beliefs, etc.)?
With your discussion group,
synthesize your discussion into a list of the most important recommendations
and cautions for educators designing instruction according to meaningful
learning and schema theory.
4.2 Thought activity: Meaningful
learning and schema theory
To be completed by Sunday, July 14
On your own or with your team (this
may be a different team than the one above), think of an instructional goal
that has, in your experience, been particularly difficult for learners to
grasp. For example, when I teach my undergraduates about behaviorism, they
always have difficulties with the difference between punishment and negative
reinforcement.
How could the principles of
meaningful learning and schema theory be used to help design effective
instruction for this situation? Design a lesson based on these learning
theories to help learners reach this instructional goal.
Both synchronous (chat) and asynchronous
(discussion forum) tools have been set up for you in Oncourse. Use whichever
(or both) will help facilitate the completion of your synthesis. If you choose
to communicate via email and/or outside of Oncourse, forward the instructors
copies of your group communications, as always.
How this thought activity will be
assessed:
1.
Please limit your lesson to 3-4
pages.
2.
Both process and outcomes will be
considered in the assessment.
3.
Support your lesson with evidence
from the readings. Why do you think addressing the problem the way you've
suggested would work according to schema theory or the ideas of meaningful
learning? You may incorporate this into the lesson plan in whatever way works
for your group.
4.
Have you chosen a relevant problem
and explained the situation well enough that we can evaluate your lesson?
Please provide appropriate context information.
4.3 Reflections
To be completed by Sunday, July 14
The purpose of the reflection is for
you to think about what you have learned through this experience.
If you completed this activity individually,
please submit the answer to these questions to your instructor along with your
unit product:
1. Why did you choose to work individually on this activity?
2. How did this individual experience compare with your earlier group
experiences?
3. How did your understanding of the learning theory change through this
activity?
If you completed this activity as a group,
please answer the following questions individually and submit to the
instructor. Please be honest. No group experience is without challenges and
frustrations. Reflecting on the challenges of the group experience is just as
important as celebrating the positive achievements. Being honest will help us
as instructors give better guidance to teams collaborating online in the
future.
1. Evaluate the contribution of EACH of your project team members, including
yourself, on a scale from 1 to 5. Refer to the descriptions below as you make
your ratings.
0 = team member made no visible
contributions to the project OR made significant and sustained negative
contributions to the project
1 = team member made minimal contributions to the overall project
2 = team member made uneven contributions to the project - some positive, some
negative
3 = team member made reasonable contributions to the project
4 = team member made significant and sustained positive contributions to the
project
5 = team member made significant and sustained positive contributions to the
project AND supported every member of the group by actively bringing out the
best in others.
2. Briefly describe your group's
approach to completing this thought activity.
3. Briefly describe your individual
contribution and each team member's contributions to the activity.
4. How did your understanding of the learning theory change through this
activity?
There are two
schema theory links on the Web Resources page
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
DAVID AUSUBEL
by Barbara Bowen
DAVID AUSUBEL
by Barbara Bowen
The Person and His Time
Ausubel was influenced by Piaget’s
cognitive development theory. He was very active in his field in the 1950’s to
1970’s. He developed his instructional models based on cognitive structures
His Theory
Ausubel’s theory is involved with
how individuals learn large amounts of "meaningful" material from
verbal/textual lessons in school. This is in contrast to theories developed in
the laboratory.
In Ausubel’s subsumption theory,
he contended that "the most important single factor influencing learning
is what the learner already knows." (Ausubel, 1968) A primary process in
learning is subsumption in which new material is related to relevant ideas in
the existing cognitive structures. A major instructional mode proposed by
Ausubel is the use of advance organizers. He emphasizes that advance organizers
are different from overviews and summaries which simply emphasize key ideas and
details in an arbitrary manner. Organizers act as a "subsuming
bridge" (Ausubel, 1963) between new learning material and existing related
ideas.
Scope/Application
Ausubel specifies that his theory
applies only to reception (expository) learning in school settings. He states
that there are differences between reception learning and rote and discovery
learning. Rote learning does not involve subsumption (i.e., meaningful
materials) and in discovery learning the learner must discover information
through problem solving.
Principles
- The most general ideas of a subject should be presented first and them progressively differentiated in terms of detail and specifics.
- Instructional materials should attempt to integrate new material with previously presented information through comparisons and cross-referencing of new and old ideas.
How Theory Can Help Teachers:
- We need to remember that inputs to learning are important.
- Learning materials should be well organized.
- New ideas and concepts must be potentially meaningful to learner.
- Anchoring new concepts into the learner’s already existing cognitive structure will make the new concepts recallable.
References:
Ausubel, David P.
(1968). Educational Psychology, A Cognitive View. New York
Ausubel, David P. (1967). Learning
Theory and classroom Practice. Ontario
Ausubel, David P. (1963). The
Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York
Subsumption
Theory (D. Ausubel) - Overview:
Ausubel's theory is concerned with how
individuals learn large amounts of meaningful material from verbal/textual
presentations in a school setting (in contrast to theories developed in the
context of laboratory experiments). According to Ausubel, learning is based
upon the kinds of superordinate, representational, and combinatorial processes
that occur during the reception of information. A primary process in learning
is subsumption in which new material is related to relevant ideas in the
existing cognitive structure on a substantive, non-verbatim basis. Cognitive
structures represent the residue of all learning experiences; forgetting occurs
because certain details get integrated and lose their individual identity.
A major instructional mechanism proposed
by Ausubel is the use of advance organizers: "These organizers are
introduced in advance of learning itself, and are also presented at a higher
level of abstraction, generality, and inclusiveness; and since the substantive
content of a given organizer or series of organizers is selected on the basis
of its suitability for explaining, integrating, and interrelating the material
they precede, this strategy simultaneously satisfies the substantive as well as
the programming criteria for enhancing the organization strength of cognitive
structure." (1963 , p. 81).
Ausubel emphasizes that advance
organizers are different from overviews and summaries which simply emphasize
key ideas and are presented at the same level of abstraction and generality as
the rest of the material. Organizers act as a subsuming bridge between new
learning material and existing related ideas.
Ausubel's theory has commonalities with Gestalt
theories and those that involve schema
(e.g., Bartlett )
as a central principle. There are also similarities with Bruner's
"spiral learning" model , although Ausubel emphasizes that
subsumption involves reorganization of existing cognitive structures not the
development of new structures as constructivist theories suggest. Ausubel was
apparently influenced by the work of Piaget
on cognitive development.
Scope/Application:
- Ausubel clearly indicates that his theory applies only to reception
(expository) learning in school settings. He distinguishes reception learning
from rote and discovery learning; the former because it doesn't involve
subsumption (i.e., meaningful materials) and the latter because the learner
must discover information through problem solving. A large number of studies
have been conducted on the effects of advance organizers in learning (see
Ausubel, 1968, 1978).
Example: - Ausubel (1963, p. 80) cites Boyd's
textbook of pathology as an example of progressive differentiation because the
book presents information according to general processes (e.g., inflammation,
degeneration) rather than by describing organ systems in isolation. He also
cites the Physical Science Study Committee curriculum which organizes material
according to the major ideas of physics instead of piece-meal discussion of
principle or phenomenon (p. 78).
Principles:-
1. The most general ideas of a subject should be presented first and
then progressively differentiated in terms of detail and specificity.
2. Instructional materials should
attempt to integrate new material with previously presented information through
comparisons and cross-referencing of new and old ideas.
|
David Ausubel
Who:-There is virtually no
information available on his life such as when and where he was born or even if
he is still alive today. He was,
however, influenced heavily by Jean Piaget’s cognitive development theory. He was very active in the field of
educational theory from the 1950’s through the 1970’s, during which time he
developed his instructional models based on cognitive structures.
What:- Ausubel’s most recognized theory was his Theory of
Meaningful Verbal Learning. His theory
deals mostly with how individuals learn large amounts of meaningful material
from verbal and textual lessons in school.
He thought that the primary way of learning was subsumption: a process
by which new material is related to relevant ideas in the existing cognitive
structure. Also, according to Ausubel,
the most important factor in deciding what is learned is based on what is
already known. This means that ones own
prior knowledge and biases limit and determine what is learned. Also, retention of new knowledge is greater
because it is based on prior concrete concepts.
He further described three main categories on meaningful reception of
information.
1. 1. Representation- the meaning
of a single word or symbol is learned.
2. 2. Conceptual- the learned
begins to recognize the features or attributes of a concept.
3. 3. Propositional- the learner
combines words and/or symbols to form new ideas.
Ausubel also described three
ways in which new information is processed in the brain.
1. 1. Subsumptive- newly learned
material is subordinate to prior knowledge.
2. 2. Subordinate- the student
understands a new concept and prior information becomes subordinate to that
which is newly acquired, and thus becomes secondary to the new idea.
3. 3. Combinatorial- newly
acquired knowledge combines with prior knowledge to enrich the understanding of
both concepts.
Ausubel also described two
main practices for education.
1. 1. The most general ideas of a
subject should be presented first and then progressively differentiated in
terms of detail and specifics.
2. 2. Instructional materials
should attempt to integrate new material with previously presented material.
Applications:-According to Ausubel, the
teacher must progress slowly and methodically with the students at any age
level. The most important information
must be presented first and everyone in the class must have a great
understanding of the information before progressing. Then, by gradually building on what was
already learned, the new information is much easier to grasp and appreciate. The only problem with this system is that
sometimes the root information learned is not always valid in every
circumstance. For example, if a third
grade student was drilled to understand that our solar system is made up of
nine planets, that student would be devastated to learn that Pluto is probably
not a planet at all. This new idea would
be difficult to accept, especially since all the student’s knowledge prior to
this revelation was based on a nine-planet solar system. Teachers have used his theories for years
though, but they have not been taken to the lengths that he describes in his
theories.
Implications--Though
his theories are already in practice, they are not followed as closely or as
strictly as he dictates. The student’s
role will change slightly, as the student must not be afraid to ask for
additional assistance. The teacher must
always be willing to hold up the class in order to explain the root ideas
Advaned Organizers
The
"advanced organizer" approach to teaching is a cognitive
instructional strategy used to promote the learning and retention of new
information. Proposed by David Ausubel in 1960, this strategy is one of the
most utilized methods of instruction in our schools today. http://vanguard.phys.udiaho.edu/mod/models/ausubel/index.html
In the
development of this approach Ausubel (1960) promoted meaningful learning
upholding that the most important thing a child could bring to learning
situation was what s/he already knows. Therefore, meaningful learning results
when that child consciously and explicitly ties new knowledge to relevant
concepts within his/her schema. When this occurs it produces a series of
changes within our entire cognitive structure. Existing concepts are modified
and new linkages between concepts are formed. (http://www.edu.cuhk.edu.hk/~johnson/cmap/cmapguid.html)
Ausubel (1960)
believed that meaningful learning is idiosyncratic and involves personal
recognition of the links between concepts. The most important element of
meaningful learning is not so much how information (rote vs. discovery) is
presented but how new information is integrated into an existing knowledge
base. (http://www.spjc.cc.fl.us/0/spns/lancraft/cmapping.html)
In order to
enhance meaningful learning Ausubel believed that it was important to have
students preview information to be learned. Teachers could do this by providing
a brief introduction about the way that information that is going to be
presented is structured. An example of this might be opening a lesson with a
statement that provides an overview of what will be taught. In presenting
outlines of information, teachers can help students see the big picture to be
learned. http://vanguard.phys.udiaho.edu/mod/models/ausubel/index.html
This approach
encourages students to build upon prior knowledge and mentally organize their
thoughts before being introduced to the details of new concepts.
By making new
material more familiar and meaningful to students, it should be easier to
retrieve. (Gagne, 1988)
Subsumption Theory (D. Ausubel)
Overview:
Ausubel's
theory is concerned with how individuals learn large amounts of meaningful
material from verbal/textual presentations in a school setting (in contrast to
theories developed in the context of laboratory experiments). According to
Ausubel, learning is based upon the kinds of superordinate, representational,
and combinatorial processes that occur during the reception of information. A
primary process in learning is subsumption in which new material is related to
relevant ideas in the existing cognitive structure on a substantive,
non-verbatim basis. Cognitive structures represent the residue of all learning
experiences; forgetting occurs because certain details get integrated and lose
their individual identity.
A major
instructional mechanism proposed by Ausubel is the use of advance organizers:
"These
organizers are introduced in advance of learning itself, and are also presented
at a higher level of abstraction, generality, and inclusiveness; and since the
substantive content of a given organizer or series of organizers is selected on
the basis of its suitability for explaining, integrating, and interrelating the
material they precede, this strategy simultaneously satisfies the substantive
as well as the programming criteria for enhancing the organization strength of
cognitive structure." (1963 , p. 81).
Ausubel
emphasizes that advance organizers are different from overviews and summaries
which simply emphasize key ideas and are presented at the same level of
abstraction and generality as the rest of the material. Organizers act as a
subsuming bridge between new learning material and existing related ideas.
Ausubel's
theory has commonalities with Gestalt theories and those that involve schema (e.g.,
Bartlett
Scope/Application:
Ausubel
clearly indicates that his theory applies only to reception (expository)
learning in school settings. He distinguishes reception learning from rote and
discovery learning; the former because it doesn't involve subsumption (i.e.,
meaningful materials) and the latter because the learner must discover
information through problem solving. A large number of studies have been
conducted on the effects of advance organizers in learning (see Ausubel, 1968,
1978).
Example:
Ausubel
(1963, p. 80) cites Boyd's textbook of pathology as an example of progressive
differentiation because the book presents information according to general
processes (e.g., inflammation, degeneration) rather than by describing organ
systems in isolation. He also cites the Physical Science Study Committee
curriculum which organizes material according to the major ideas of physics
instead of piece-meal discussion of principle or phenomenon (p. 78).
Principles:
1. The
most general ideas of a subject should be presented first and then
progressively differentiated in terms of detail and specificity.
2.
Instructional materials should attempt to integrate new material with
previously presented information through comparisons and cross-referencing of
new and old ideas.
References:
Ausubel,
D. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York
Ausubel,
D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational
Research, 48, 251-257.
Ausubel,
D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive
View (2nd Ed.). New York
For more
on Ausubel’s work, see www.davidausubel.org
1 comment:
Thanks
Post a Comment