Instructional design		67
Broad categories covered:		Theory base:		Pedagogical stance:
•	executive control	•	behaviourism	•	teach according
•	productive thinking	•	cognitive		to the identification
•	building understanding		information-processing		of the necessary steps
•	information-gathering				for successful learning
•	perception			•	practise frequently
				•	establish appropriate
					conditions for
					learning according
					to individual needs
				•	Gagne´ is not convinced
					of the value of
					discovery learning
Classification by:		Values:		Practical illustrations
•	degree of complexity	•	concerned with the	for teachers:
	in terms of required		efficiency of learning	•	breakdown of
	stages before learning		in terms of time spent		steps in learning
	can take place		and desired outcomes
•	type of knowledge	•	it is possible to
			control the learning

environment to achieve maximum efficiency

Ausubel and Robinson’s six hierarchically-ordered categories

Description and intended use

Ausubel is best known for his theory of meaningful learning, developed in the 1960s (Ausubel, 1968). He proposed (1968, p. 10) that ‘rotely and meaningfully learned materials are represented and organized quite differently in the student’s psychological structure of knowledge.’ He claimed that rote as opposed to meaningful learning is more likely to take place when:

•the material to be learned lacks logical meaning

•the learner lacks the relevant ideas in his/her cognitive structure

•the individual lacks a meaningful learning set (a disposition to link new concepts, propositions and examples to prior knowledge and experience).

68 Frameworks for Thinking

Although he is not opposed to rote-learning techniques in, for example, the teaching of phonics, Ausubel sees the development of conceptual understanding as the goal of education. However, he asserts that much of what is termed conceptual understanding is actually the assimilation (rather than the formation) of concepts: ‘Most of what anyone really knows consists of insights discovered by others that have been communicated to him or her in a meaningful fashion’ (Ausubel, 1978, p. 530).

It is therefore important, in Ausubel’s view, for teachers to present new learning in such a way that students can relate it to their existing knowledge, taking into account the complexity of the new learning and the cognitive development of the learners. Ausubel and Robinson (1969) use the following six hierarchically-ordered categories in their analysis of learning:

•representational learning

•concept learning

•propositional learning

•application

•problem-solving

•creativity.

As in Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), here there is an emphasis on the need to build up a store of meaningful knowledge before operating with it at a more advanced level. Representational learning is equivalent to Bloom’s knowledge category, while concept and propositional learning are equivalent to comprehension.

However, while Ausubel sees some value (especially at the secondary stage of education) in using problem-solving approaches within subject areas, he does not believe that the main purpose of education should be to develop generic thinking, enquiry and problem-solving skills. In his view (1978, p. 583), this idea is: ‘little more than an illusory goal and a recurrently fashionable slogan in education. On theoretical and practical grounds it can never amount to more than a critical approach to the teaching of particular subject matter disciplines.’

Creativity and creative thinking fare no better under Ausubel’s analysis. He regards genuine creativity as so rare that it is not worth pursuing in most educational contexts, where it is more democratic to

Instructional design	69

use available resources to cater for the needs of the many rather than the few. He asks (1978, p. 546):

Would it not be more realistic to strive first to have each pupil respond meaningfully, actively and critically to good expository teaching before we endeavour to make him or her a creative thinker or even a good critical thinker and problem solver?

Ausubel believes that teacher-directed learning is more effective than learning by discovery, arguing that pupil enquiry can result in uncorrected errors and misconceptions and indeed, meaningless rote learning. Instead, teachers should ‘provide ideational scaffolding’, especially in the form of advance organisers (1967, p. 26). An advance organiser is ‘material that is presented in advance of and at a higher level of generality, inclusiveness, and abstraction than the learning task itself ’ (Ausubel and Robinson, 1969, p. 606). This provides a framework, so that new learning material can be discriminated and integrated with previously learned, related ideas. To be most effective, the organisers should be formulated in terms of language and concepts already familiar to the learner and use appropriate illustrations and analogies.

Ausubel also proposes that big concepts should be presented first, as the adequacy of prior learning of key superordinate concepts is more important than age or IQ as a predictor of success:

Since subsumption of new information is generally much easier than acquisition of new superordinate concepts, curricula should be planned to introduce the major concepts or propositions early in the course to serve as a cognitive anchorage for subsequent learning. (Ausubel, 1978, p. 530)

He also urges teachers to order the sequence of subject matter by ‘constructing its internal logic and organisation and arranging practice trials and feedback’ (1967, p. 23). The aim is to facilitate ‘integrative reconciliation’.

Evaluation

Ausubel and Robinson’s basic intention is to help teachers to improve the structure and sequencing of their teaching in order to develop meaningful as opposed to rote learning. As with Bloom, the emphasis

70 Frameworks for Thinking

here is upon the need to help learners build up a store of meaningful knowledge, which they can relate to previous knowledge and experience and eventually use in higher-order thinking. This framework does usefully emphasise the importance of well-structured and carefully-sequenced expository teaching.

The focus here is upon making teachers more aware of the structure and content of learners’ existing knowledge. However, learners are seen as more or less compliant recipients of new information, with the teacher rather than the learner as the chief architect of the cognitive construction process. Ausubel ignores Piaget’s work on accommodation and the importance of cognitive restructuring after experiencing cognitive conflict.

Discovery learning is criticised on the grounds it might result in uncorrected errors. Rather than constructing understanding for themselves, learners are encouraged to learn what the teacher knows. The teaching of generic thinking is also criticised, but these criticisms are presented as ex cathedra judgments, rather than with empirical support. Ausubel seems blind to the idea that a positive attitude towards learning can be developed through giving pupils more opportunities to plan, monitor and evaluate their own learning.

From this predominantly teacher-led perspective it is perhaps not surprising to find that creative thinking is considered to be so rare that it is not worth pursuing. Here Ausubel seems to confuse the everyday creativity encouraged by active learning with being a creative genius.

Summary: Ausubel

			Relevance for teachers
Purpose and structure		Some key features	and learning
Main purpose(s):		Terminology:	Intended audience:
•	to promote	• clear definitions	•	curriculum planners
	meaningful learning	and explanations	•	examiners
•	to ensure education	of technical terms	•	teachers
	is informed by		•	students
	psychology