You are here:

Effects of questioning advance organizers on learning outcomes in a web-based learning object on research and academic skills
PROCEEDING

, Fachhochschule Lübeck, Germany ; , , FernUniversität in Hagen, Germany

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Amsterdam, Netherlands Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This study explores the effect of integrating a Questioning Advance Organizer (QAO) into a web-based learning object on the basics of research and academic skills on perceived learning success, student attitudes and learning outcomes. Traditional Descriptive Advance Organizers (DAO), as originally developed by Ausubel (1960) present expository information before learning, in order for students to be able to meaningfully interpret and organize new incoming information. Questioning Advance Organizers (QAO) differ in that they present open-ended questions regarding the material to be learnt, in order to initiate deeper cognitive processing. 32 volunteer students from different disciplines were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, containing learning objects, which either presented QAOs or DAOs. The QAOs were comprised of questioning techniques intended to activate students pre-knowledge and problem solving skills. The DAOs were comprised of short descriptions of competencies that students are supposed to acquire in the following chapter. Results indicated no statistically significant differences between both groups, both in terms of perceived learning and actual learning. Students in both groups indicated a moderately high degree of satisfaction with the learning material. Given the results, this study does not provide evidence to support the use of QAOs within web based learning objects on research skills.

Citation

Brunn, C., Weidlich, J. & Bastiaens, T. (2018). Effects of questioning advance organizers on learning outcomes in a web-based learning object on research and academic skills. In T. Bastiaens, J. Van Braak, M. Brown, L. Cantoni, M. Castro, R. Christensen, G. Davidson-Shivers, K. DePryck, M. Ebner, M. Fominykh, C. Fulford, S. Hatzipanagos, G. Knezek, K. Kreijns, G. Marks, E. Sointu, E. Korsgaard Sorensen, J. Viteli, J. Voogt, P. Weber, E. Weippl & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1951-1960). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 1, 2024 from .

© 2018 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Andre, T., & Thieman, A. (1988). Level of adjunct question, type of feedback, and learning concepts by reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(3), 296–307.
  2. Apitz, A. (2008). The effects of multimedia advance organizers on comprehending authentic German video. The University of Iowa.
  3. 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.
  4. Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: a cognitive view (2d ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  5. Ausubel, D.P., & Robinson, F.G. (1969). School learning; an introduction to educational psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  6. Barnes, B.R., & 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.
  7. Callender, A.A., & McDaniel, M.A. (2007). The benefits of embedded question adjuncts for low and high structure builders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 339–348.
  8. Chen, B. (2007). Effects of Advance Organizers on Learning and Retention From a Fully Web-Bassed Class. University of Central Florida.
  9. Cheon, J., Chung, S., Song, J., & Kim, Y. (2015). An investigation of the effects of a graphic organizer in an online serious game on learning outcomes and attitudinal perceptions. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(4), 437–452.
  10. Collazo, N.A.J., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2012). Perceptions for Tool Use: In Search of a Tool Use Model. In T. Amiel& B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2012 (pp. 2905–2912). Denver, Colorado, USA: Association
  11. Dillon, J.T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16(2), 97–111.
  12. Dillon, J.T. (1984). The classification of research questions. Review of Educational Research, 54, 327– 361.
  13. Dillon, J.T. (2004). Questioning and Teaching: A Manual of Practice. Resource Publications (OR).
  14. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, bevavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
  15. Felker, D.B., & Dapra, R.A. (1975). Effects of question type and question placement on problem-solving ability from prose material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(3), 380–384.
  16. Ge, X., & Land, S.M. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Scaffolding Ill-Structured ProblemSolving Processes Using Question Prompts and Peer Interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.
  17. Gurlitt, J., Dummel, S., Schuster, S., & Nückles, M. (2012). Differently structured advance organizers lead to different initial schemata and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 40(2), 351–369.
  18. Hamaker, C. (1986). The Effects of Adjunct Questions on Prose Learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(2), 212–242.
  19. Hamilton, R.J. (1985). A Framework for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Adjunct Questions and Objectives. Review of Educational Research, 55(1), 47–85.
  20. Hannafin, M.J., & Hughes, C.W. (1986). A framework for incorporating orienting activities in computer-based interactive video. Instructional Science, 15(3), 239–255.
  21. Han, N., Crooks, S., & Xie, K. (2005). Using Question Prompts as Metacognitive Scaffolds in Science Reading Comprehension. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D.A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 1405–1408). Phoenix, AZ, USA: Association for
  22. Herron, C., York, H., Cole, S.P., & Linden, P. (1998). A Comparison Study of Student Retention of Foreign Language Video: Declarative versus Interrogative Advance Organizer. The Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 237.
  23. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G., & Chinn, C.A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
  24. Hopper, J. (1992). The Efficacy of Advance Organizer in Upper Elenemtary School Curriculum. University of North Florida.
  25. Jia, J. (2007). The Effects of Concept Mapping as Advance Organizers in Instructional Designs for Distance Learning Programs. Wayne State University.
  26. Likourezos, V., & Kalyuga, S. (2017). Instruction-first and problem-solving-first approaches: alternative pathways to learning complex tasks. Instructional Science, 45(2), 195–219.
  27. Kenny, R.F. (1993). The Effectiveness of Instructional Orienting Activities in ComputerBased Instruction. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations (Vol. IR 016 328, pp. 1–22).
  28. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
  29. Lawton, J.T., & Wanska, S.K. (1977). Advance Organizers as a Teaching Strategy: A Reply to Barnes and Clawson. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 233–244.
  30. Lee, H.W., Lim, K.Y., & Grabowski, B.L. (2008). Generative Learning: Principles and Implications for Making Meaning. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Vol. 3, pp. 111–124).
  31. Lin, H., & Chen, T. (2006). Decreasing cognitive load for novice EFL learners: Effects of question and descriptive advance organizers in facilitating EFL learners’ comprehension of an animation-based content lesson. System, 34(3), 416–431.
  32. Lin, H., Dwyer, F., & Swain, J. (2006). The Effect of Varied Cognitive Strategies Used to Complement Animated Instruction in Facilitating Achievement of Higher Order Learning Objectives. International Journal of Teaching& Learning in HigherEducation, 18(3), 155–167.
  33. Lin, H., Kidwai, K., Munyofu, M., Swain, J., Austrian, B., & Dwyer, F. (2005). The Effect of Verbal Advance Organizers in Complementing Animated Instruction. Journal of Visual Literacy, 25(2), 237–248.
  34. Lin, H., Kidwai, K., Munyofu, M., Swain, W., Ausman, B., & Dwyer, F. (2004). The Effect of Visual Statement and Question Advance Organizers in Complementing Animated Instruction in a Webbased environment on Undergraduate Student Achievement of Different Educational Objectives. In J. Nall& R. Robson (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning inCorporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2004 (pp. 2007–2012).
  35. Liu, Y.H. (2006). The Effects of an Advance Organizer and Two Types of Feedback on Pre-service Teachers’ Knowledge Application in a Blended Learning Environment. Pennsylvania State University.
  36. Mayer, R.E. (1979). Twenty Years of Research on Advance Organizers. (Technical Report Series in Learning and Cognition No. 79-1). California Univ., Santa Barbara. Dept. Of Psychology.
  37. Niemczyk, M., & Savenye, W. (2010). Improving Learning in Computer-based Instruction Through Questioning and Grouping Strategies. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19(1), 79–102.
  38. Osman, M.E., & Hannafin, M.J. (1994). Effects of Advance Questioning and Prior Knowledge on Science Learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 5– 13.
  39. Rasch, B., Friese, M., Hofmann, W., & Naumann, E. (2014). Verfahren für Rangdaten. In B. Rasch, M. Friese, W. Hofmann, & E. Naumann, Quantitative Methoden (4. Auflage, Vol. Band 2, pp. 93–
  40. Ritchie, D.C., & Gimenez, F. (1995). Effectiveness of graphic organizers in computer-based instruction with dominant Spanish-speaking and dominant English-speaking students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 221–233.
  41. Roohani, A., Jafarpour, A., & Zarei, S. (2015). Effects of Visualisation and Advance Organisers in Reading Multimedia-Based Texts. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 21(2), 47–62.
  42. Sagerman, N., & Mayer, R.E. (1987). Forward transfer of different reading strategies evoked by adjunct questions in science text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 189–191.
  43. Schmidt, H.G., Loyens, S.M.M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-Based Learning is Compatible with Human Cognitive Architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97.
  44. Slock, J.A., Snyder, I.S., & Sharp, W.L. (1980). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an advance organizer in a medical microbiology course. Academic Medicine, 55(10).
  45. Taricani, E. (2007). Effects of the Level of Generativity in Concept Mapping with Knowledge of Correct Response FeedBack on Learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(1), 39–49.
  46. Thalheimer, W. (2003). The learning benefits of questions.
  47. Watts, G.H., & Anderson, R.C. (1971). Effects of three types of inserted questions on learning from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(5), 387–394.
  48. Wittke, A. (2013). CloudBooks-LOOP ein neues Autorentool. In T. Köhler & N. Kahnwald (Eds.), Online Communities: Enterprise Networks, Open Education and Global Communication. (pp. 319–324).

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections