This article was downloaded by: [University of Alberta]

On: 25 April 2015, At: 16:09

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Effects of Advance Questioning and Prior Knowledge on

Science Learning
a b
Mohamed E. Osman & Michael J. Hannafin
a
Federal Express Corporation
b
Florida State University
Published online: 15 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Mohamed E. Osman & Michael J. Hannafin (1994) Effects of Advance Questioning and Prior Knowledge on
Science Learning, The Journal of Educational Research, 88:1, 5-13, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.1994.9944829

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1994.9944829

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone
is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
 Effects of Advance Ouestioning and
Prior Knowledge on Science Learning
MOHAMED E. OSMAN
Fedml Express Corpontion
ABSTRACT The effects of conceptual orienting ques-
tions and differences in prior knowledge on factual learning
and probkm soMng in biology were examined. A total of 107
10th graders were assigned to a control group, an orienting
questions group, or an orienting question-plus-rationale
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 16:09 25 April 2015
group. After initial training, puticip~tscompleted a M a y in-
troductory ksson on genetics. One day after completing the in-
struetion, a posttest was administered. Overall, both question
groups outperformed the control group. In addition, probkm-
solving scores improved proportionately more than fact scores
through the use of questions and rationale. Meaningful re-
sponses to the embedded orienting questions were greatest for
tbe question-plus-rationale group and were significantly corre-
lated with posttest performance. High-level orienting ques-
tions, designed to activate existing knowledge based upon con-
ceptual relevance to forthcoming instruction, PIP of greatest
value when a rationale for their use is provided.
M etacognition-one’s propositional, procedural,
and conditional knowledge of individual cogni-
tive processes and actions-has attracted considerable
interest among cognitive psychologists, curriculum the-
orists, educational reformers, and teachers of study
skills (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983;
Osman & Hannafin, 1992). Learners possess, to varying
degrees, metacognitive resources that can be invoked or
elicited to engage lesson content more deeply.
One method used to promote engagement and sup-
port metacognitive processes is advance (orienting)
questioning (Anderson & Biddle, 1975; Andre, 1987;
Andre & Thieman, 1988; Hamilton, 1985; King, 1992;
Pressley, Tenenbaum, McDaniel, & Wood, 1990). Ori-
enting questions provide a perspective from which
learners can selectively anticipate learning needs, iden-
tify relevant from irrelevant information, and monitor
comprehension accordingly. The effects of orienting
questions are mediated by the explicitness of the ques-
tions and their relationship to forthcoming instruction.
Explicit orienting questions focus learner processes on
question-specific information-often to the detriment
of higher level knowledge and skills such as problem
solving (Hannafin & Hughes, 1986).
5
MICHAEL J. HANNAFIN
Florida State University
High-level orienting questions, in contrast, require
that to-be-learned lesson content be integrated rather
than simply filtered. They imply relationships to be es-
tablished, dilemmas to be faced, and problems to be
solved rather than isolating explicitly which information
to process. They require that learners evaluate and con-
nect forthcoming information. High-level orienting
questions help to activate prior knowledge and induce
processes that promote not only selection, but knowl-
edge integration and application as well (Adam &
Bruce, 1980; Anderson & Biddle, 1975; Anderson &
Pearson, 1984; Andre, 1987; Ausubel, 1968; Martin &
Pressley, 1991; Mayer, 1984; Moorman & Blanton,
1990; Pressley, Symons, McDaniel, Snyder, & Turnure,
1988; Rumelhart, 1980; Watts & Anderson, 1971).
The success of orienting questions is influenced by the
availability of prior knowledge. Individuals with signifi-
cant prior content knowledge can activate available
schemata to both extend and modify existing represen-
tations, whereas those with little or no background
knowledge have relatively few content-based resources
to draw upon. However, even in relatively unfamiliar
confenf domains, individuals often possess concepf-
relevunf knowledge that aids in their understanding of
new concepts (Hannafin & Hooper, 1993). Conceptual-
ly related knowledge, though relevant in important ways
(e.g., terminology, function, structure), is acquired in-
itially in domains other than those under study. It is an
abstraction of meaning that enables the unknown to be
understood in terms of what is known; meaning in one
context provides a conceptual foundation that may prove
useful in other contexts. For example, “competition” in
the context of winning a foot race has conceptual par-
allels in different contexts, such as the bio-evolution-
ary concept of “survival of the fittest.” Conceptually
relevant prior knowledge provides an interpretive foun-
dation for understanding new concepts and monitor-
ing comprehension if the learner both possesses and is
aware of the potential relevance of such knowledge.
Address correspondence to Michael Hannsfin, Department
of Educational Research, 305 Stone Building, 8-197, Florid0
State Univemily, Tallahassee, FL 32305.
 6 Journal of Educational Research
In this study, the effects of high-level, concept-relevant
orienting questions and differences in prior knowledge
on learning, participation, and attitudes were examined.
Participants receiving orienting questions were predict-
ed to outperform those who received none, with the
greatest effect predicted for those receiving rationales
for question use. They were also projected to report
more favorable reactions to the instructional content
and met hods because they provided the most complete
understanding of the value of processing the orienting
question. Finally, problem solving was predicted to be
influenced proportionately more than factual learning
by orienting questions due to the conceptual-versus-
explicit nature of the orienting questions.
Method
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 16:09 25 April 2015
Part icipanis
A total of 107 10th-grade students from an urban
high school participated in all phases of the study. In-
itially, 156 students were selected for the study; how-
ever, only those who completed all aspects were includ-
ed. The participants ranged in age from 15 through 17
years, and were generally from low-to-middle socioeco-
nomic backgrounds.
Materials
Lesson description. The lesson consisted of a 2,500-
word expository passage adapted from an introductory
biology textbook. The content focused on elementary
concepts of genetic probability and the contributions of
Gregor Mendel to the principles of heredity. The reada-
bility level of the adapted text was at the 10th-grade in-
structional level per Flesch’s Readability Formula
(1962).
Three versions were developed: basic lesson, basic les-
son with embedded orienting questions, and basic lesson
with embedded orienting questions-plus-rationale.
Basic lesson (B). The basic lesson included an intro-
duction plus nine sections divided into two parts. Part 1
comprised five sections: The Origin of Genetics, Men-
del’s Experiments, The Principle of Dominance, The
Principle of Segregation, and The Principle of Inde-
pendent Assortment. Part 2 included Genetics and
Probability, The Principles of Chance and Probability,
Predicting the Results of Genetic Crosses, and The Pun-
nett Square and Crosses Involving One Trait. Each sec-
tion contained principles, rules, and facts related to
genetics and ranged from three to five paragraphs in
length. Each section concluded with a summary/transi-
tion statement that reviewed the main ideas presented in
the section and encouraged participants to “think about”
how to apply the concepts to personally relevant topics in
genetics. The basic lesson served as a control in the study.
Neither questions nor rationales were provided.
Basic + orienting questions (B + Q). This version in-
cluded two to three conceptual orienting questions that
were presented in advance of each section. The orienting
questions focused on everyday knowledge that was con-
ceptually related to forthcoming lesson concepts. They
were designed to activate concept-relevant prior knowl-
edge, but did not require content-specific prior knowl-
edge to answer. For example, the question “If you toss
a coin two times, what do you think would be your
chances of getting heads twice?” was related to the
probability of inheriting genetic traits. It required
neither a correct response to the computational aspects
of probability nor knowledge of genetics per se. Instead,
it was designed to activate an individually relevant
framework for comprehension that was conceptually
linked to the topic of genetic probability. Likewise, the
question “What does the term ‘segregation’ mean to
you?” was designed to elicit general knowledge about a
term that has a broadly defined meaning in society and
culture, but a specialized meaning in genetics. Responses
to the questions were written directly onto the pages of
the student’s lesson booklet.
Basic + orienting questions + rationale (B + Q + R).
This version included orienting questions plus a rationale
for their use. The purposes of the rationale were to pro-
mote understanding of the value of the questions, make
participants more conscious of the embedded questions,
and encourage participants to use them to relate forth-
coming to prior knowledge. The rationales focused on in-
tegrative themes at each question point, not on the spe-
cific answers to the questions. For example, the rationale
for the coin toss questions was, “They will help you un-
derstand how to predict the genetic composition and the
appearance of an individual.” In addition, participants
were encouraged to generate their own reasons why ori-
enting questions were important. Written responses were
recorded in the lesson booklets. The rationales were pre-
sented after each set of orienting questions.
Posttest
We initially reviewed a pool of 40 factual and problem-
solving items along with three experienced science teach-
ers. Factual items reflected primarily declarative infor-
mation presented during the lesson. Problem-solving
questions required the application of genetics concepts to
untaught problems. Content validity was established by
having the science teachers rate each item in the pool, us-
ing a list of performance objectives and a table of test-
item specifications as criteria. The items were revised and
administered to 48 10th graders in a university laboratory
school and evaluated for consistency within scales, relia-
bility, and discriminability. The content validity index
(CVI) for the posttest, calculated using a Cpoint rating
scale, was .93, reliability of the posttest was .76.
 September/October 1994 [Val. W N o . 111
The 33-item multiple-choice posttest assessed factual
learning (16 items) and problem solving (17 items). Factual
learning was defined as the ability to recognize proposi-
tional and declarative information presented in the text
99
(e.g., “Traits are transmitted by means of ?- ). In
problem-solving questions, participants were presented a
real or hypothetical problem that required an application
of genetics principles and rules (e.g., “What is the proba-
bility of all four children in a family being boys?”).
A ttitude Questionnaire
Six questionnaire items were developed to assess par-
ticipants’ attitudes toward the content of the lesson, the
instructional materials, and the instructional methods
used in the lesson. They were asked to evaluate each
statement on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly dis-
agree (1) to strongly agree (5). The statements were de-
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 16:09 25 April 2015
signed to identify differences in the perceptions of partic-
ipants related to the treatments used in the study.
Design and Dependent Measures
In our study, we used a 3 x 2 ( x 2) mixed-effects
design. The between-subject factors included three lesson
versions (basic lesson, basic + orienting questions, and
basic + orienting questions + rationale) and two levels
of prior knowledge (low and high). The within-subject
factor included two types of learning (factual and prob-
lem solving).
The dependent variables included factual and problem-
solving scores from the posttest, ratings given to each of
the six items on the attitude questionnaire, and partici-
pant responses to each of the orienting questions. Re-
sponses to the embedded questions were collected to de-
termine the extent to which orienting questions stimulat-
ed prior knowledge and the degree to which learners ac-
tually used the questions and rationale.
Procedures
Participants were divided into two prior-knowledge
groups (high and low) based upon science scores on the
California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS). Those from each
prior-knowledge group were then randomly assigned to
one of the three groups and received oral and written pre-
liminary instructions regarding their treatment. Those in
the orienting questions and question-plus-rationale groups
received a brief training exercise in using orienting ques-
tions. A neutral topic (collective bargaining) was selected
to acclimate participants to the procedures without prim-
ing the lesson content. They were informed of the value
of orienting questions in relating new knowledge to exist-
ing data. In addition, several examples were provided re-
lated to collective bargaining, such as “How do employ-
ers and employees get along with each other?” Potential
answers were suggested, and participants were encour-
aged to generate their own answers to the examples.
7
Upon reading the brief passage on collective bargaining,
participants reflected on the orienting questions and the
degree to which the passage supported or contradicted
their own answers. The importance of generating re-
sponses to the orienting questions was stressed, not the
accuracy of the initial answers. For logistical reasons, the
initial training exercise was built into the beginning of the
instructional materials.
Students in the basic lesson were given a warm-up exer-
cise during which they were encouraged to identify and
use those met hods they believed most individually effec-
tive. They were then given the same collective bargaining
passage and, upon completion of the passage, the same
orienting questions that were provided to the other
groups. This was done to provide comparable task and
content exposure for each group.
Although no time limit was enforced, the treatment
required approximately two 50-min periods to complete
the introductory exercise, lesson, and posttest. All stu-
dents were informed of the nature of the study, in-
cluding the procedures to be followed, the importance
of reading carefully and following directions, and of the
test to be administered upon completion of the lesson.
Students completed the lesson during regularly sched-
uled biology class meetings on 2 consecutive days. Par-
ticipants were then given the posttest 1 day after com-
pleting the instruction.
Results and Discussion
Learning Effects
Adjusted and observed means and standard devia-
tions are presented in Table 1 and analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) source data in Table 2. The learning effects
were analyzed using ANCOVA, with the overall reading
subtest score on the California Test of Basic Skills as the
covariate. We selected the CTBS to minimize the in-
fluence of reading differences on the outcomes of the
study. Means for significant effects were compared, us-
ing Tukey’s multiple comparison test with a minimum p
of .05. Effect sizes were calculated as a ratio of the dif-
ferences between the means to the pooled group stan-
dard deviation (Cohen, 1988).
A significant main effect was detected for lesson ver-
sion, f l l , 201) = 2 3 . 6 8 , ~c .001, effect size = 1.35 SD.
Students who received questions only and questions-plus-
rationale answered an average of 18.56 (56%) and 20.32
(61%) questions, respectively, whereas those in the basic
lesson answered an average of 15.43 (46%) questions cor-
rectly. Subsequent tests using Tukey’s multiple compari-
son procedures showed that participants in the question-
plus-rationale group answered more questions correctly
than did participants in both question-only and basic
groups. The question-only group answered more ques-
tions correctly than did those in the basic group.
 8 Journal of Educational Research

Table 1.-Adjusted and Observed Means and Standard Deviations for Factual Learning and Problem
Solving, by Lesson Version and Level (High or Low) of Prior Knowledge

Basic Basic + question

rationale Overall Question +
( n = 35) 38)
(n = 34) ( N = 107) (n =
High Low High Low High Low High Low
Type of learning (n = 18) ( n = 17) ( n = 19) ( n = 15) ( n = 19) (n = 19) (n = 56) (n = 51)
~~ ~ ~ ~

Facts
Adjusted M 10.08 8.65 10.48 9.23 11.00 10.00 10.53 9.32
Observed M 10.39 8.41 10.53 9.07 11.37 9.68 10.77 9.08
SD 2.30 1.94 2.60 1.44 2.27 1.67 2.39 1.75
Problem solving
Adjusted M 6.91 5.12 9.48 7.57 10.26 9.37 8.92 7.42
Observed M 7.22 4.88 9.52 7.40 10.63 9.45 9.16 7.32
SD 3.80 1.32 2.61 1.50 2.48 1.84 3.27 2.36
Total score
Adjusted M 16.99 13.77 19.% 16.80 21.26 19.37 19.45 16.74
Observed M 17.61 13.29 20.05 16.47 22.00 19.13 19.93 16.40
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 16:09 25 April 2015

SD 5.33 2.59 4.68 2.33 4.06 2.62 4.96 3.39

Nore. Adjusted mean main effect summaries: Facts: Basic 9.38; basic + question = 9.93; question +
=
rationale = 10.50; overall = 9.95. Problem solving: Basic 6.04; basic + question = 8.63; question +
=
rationale = 9.82; overall = 8.21. Lesson version total: Basic = 15.43; basic + question = 18.56; ques-
tion + rationale = 20.32. Prior knowledge total: High = 19.45; low = 16.74. Maximum scores for facts
= 16. problem solving = 17, total test = 33.

Table 2.-ANCOVA Source Data

~

Source of variation ss df MS F Variance explained

Covariate
Reading 153.13 I 153.13 32.00. .09
Main effects
Between-subjects factors
Lesson version (LV) 226.11 2 113.35 23.68* .I3
Prior knowledge (PK) 99.95 I 99.95 20.89* .06
Within-subject factor
Type of learning (TL) 160.87 I 160.87 33.62* .10
Interactions
LV x PK 4.32 2 2.16 .45
LV x TL 70.77 2 35.38 7.39" .04
PK x TL 1.19 1 1.19 .25
PK x LV x TL 1.27 2 .64 I .34
Explained 717.59 I2 59.79 12.49' .43
Residual %1.72 201 4.78
Total 1,679.3 1 213 7.88

*p < .Mx)I. * * p < ,001

A predicted main effect was also detected for differ-
ences in prior knowledge, F(1, 201) = 20.89, p < .OOOl,
effect size = .93 SD.As expected, high prior-knowledge
participants answered an average of 19.45 (59%) ques-
tions correctly, and low prior-knowledge participants an-
swered an average of 16.74 (51%) questions correctly. A
significant interaction was found between lesson version
and type of learning, F(2, 201) = 7.36, p c .001, effect
size = .76 SD.This interaction is shown in Figure 1 . All
groups were better on factual questions than on problem-
solving questions; however, the differences were greater
for participants in the basic group (3.34) than for those
who received either questions (1.30) or questions-plus-
rationale (.68). As predicted, the difference between fact
and problem-solving scores declined across the lesson
versions, suggesting that the orienting questions im-
proved problem solving proportionately more than fac-
tual learning.
Analysis of Student Responses
The percentage of orienting questions that were an-
swered meaningfully (those that reflected the presence of
 SeptemberAktober1994 [Vol. WNo. 111
1. lotarcion Betwen Leaon Varrbaaod Typeof L a m h ~
Number of
c-RaPoaa
0 Problem Solving
II 10.3
6.01
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 16:09 25 April 2015
individually relevant prior knowledge as indicated by in-
dependent review) was the basic unit of analyses. A pool
of alternative responses was generated for each question
and served as a rubric for assigning either a 0 or a 1 to
each response. Meaningful responses demonstrated plau-
sible (although not necessarily correct) responses (e.g.,
“50-50” to the question “If you toss a coin two times,
what do you think the chances would be of getting heads
twice?”) or conceptually related information of concepts
(e.g., “racial prejudice” or “keeping my brother and me
in separate rooms” to the question “What does the term
‘segregation’ mean to you?”). Nonmeaningful responses
included irrelevant responses (e.g., “I’d keep the coin”
to the coin-toss question), imprecise or ambiguous state-
ments (e.g., “Pretty good!”), statements of uncertainty
(e.g., “I’m not sure”), and blank responses. In cases
where responses not listed but deemed equivalent were
found, credit was assigned accordingly. Responses were
evaluated “blindly”: A response was rated 1 (meaning-
I Tabk J.--Mcrra Number of Meaningful Responses Provided to Embedded Orknting Queetiom
I Prior knowledge Basic + questions
Lesson version
High 9.21
(n = 19)
Low 8.00
(n = 18)”
Total 8.70
(n = 37)
I I
I Nore. Maximum number o f opportunities = 16: one case was excluded because of missing data.
*Data from a total o f four cases were unusabk.
9
fuf) if it reflected one or more of the identified alterna-
tives, or 0 (nonmeuningfuf)if none was reflected.
Student response summaries for the basic-plusquestions
and the question-plus-rationale groups are shown in
Table 3. A 2 x 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
completed using both question groups and prior knowl-
edge levels to examine differences in the completion of
the orienting questions. Significant differences in mean-
ingful responses were found between both question ver-
sions, F(1,65) = 28.68,p < .oOOl, and prior knowledge
levels, F(1, 65) = 7.52, p c .008. The question-plus-
rationale group answered an average of 11.47 (72%) on-
enting questions meaningfully compared with 8.70 (54%)
for the question-only group, suggesting that the rationale
increased the probability of question use. High prior-
knowledge participants answered more questions mean-
ingfully (10.73)than low prior-knowledge participants
(9.47)did.
Whereas meaningful response rates were generally high
for both orienting question groups, responses were also
influenced by the rationale for their use. Overall, 90% of
the participants in the question-plus-rationale group pro-
vided at least one meaningful response to the orienting
questions, compared with 78% of the participants in the
question-only group. The frequency of responding, how-
ever, was higher for the rationale group. Seventy-three
percent of the orienting questions were answered mean-
ingfully by the rationale group, whereas the question-
only group answered only 54% of the orienting questions
meaningfully. Further, more than three fourths (77Vo)of
the learners in the question-plus-rationale group provided
at least one personal, supplemental rationale during the
study, although comparatively few supplemental oppor-
tunities (38%) of the opportunities were used overall.
The correlations between meaningful responses to the
orienting questions and posttest performance, shown in
Table 4, further support this effect. Across question
groups, the correlation between meaningful responses to
orienting questions and the posttest scores was high [r(fB)
= .71,p < .001],suggesting that responses to the orient-
I
Questions + rationale Overall I
12.33 10.73
( n = 14)” (n = 33)
10.61 9.47
( n = 18)“ (ti = 36)
11.47 10.14
(n = 32) (N = 69)
 10
ing questions and subsequent performance were highly
related. In addition, both low and high prior-knowledge
participants obtained comparably significant correlations
between meaningful responses to orienting questions and
subsequent performance (.68 vs. .74, respectively). The
correlations for the question-only (r = .68) and the
question-plus-rationale (r = .71) groups, however, were
largely undifferentiated.
A ttitudes
The items included on the attitude questionnaire, along
with mean responses to each item, are shown in Table 5.
Responses were analyzed via a 3 x 2 between-subjects
ANOVA, and significant effects were examined further,
using Tukey’s multiple comparison test (p < .05).
Significant main effects for lesson version were found
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 16:09 25 April 2015
for continuing interest in genetics (Item No. I), F(2, 106)
= 4.43, p < .Ol, and actual use of the lesson methods
during the study (Item No. 4), F(2, 106) = 4.04, p < .02.
Students receiving questions-plus-rationale reported
more positive attitudes toward the lesson content and
more method usage during the study than basic lesson
participants did. A significant lesson version main effect,
F(2, 106) = 3.14, p < .05, and prior knowledge-by-
lesson version interaction, F(2, 106) = 3.81, p < .03,
were also found for perceived generalizability of the
lesson methods for other learning (Item No. 5 ) . Low
prior-knowledge participants indicated greater agreement
than did high prior-knowledge students that the basic
lesson strategies would help in other learning situations,
whereas high prior-knowledge participants reported most
favorable responses to the question versions. No signifi-
cant differences were found for high versus low prior
knowledge.
General Discussion
Several findings, taken together, are noteworthy. The
learning differences obtained for orienting questions
were consistent with previous research (Andre, 1987;
Hamaker, 1986; Hamilton, 1985; King, 1992; Nolan,
1991; Pressley et al., 1990; Pressley et al., 1992). Orient-
Table 4.-Correla1ions Between Meaningful Responses to
Embedded Orienting Queslions and Posllesl Scores for Each
Treatment Combinalion
Prior
knowledge Basic + questions Questions + rationale Total
High .77** .77**
Low .57 .61’
Total .68** .7 I **
*p c .01; * p < .oOl.
Journal of Educational Research
ing questions appear to activate prior knowledge, induce
higher order cognitive processes, and provide a basis for
meta-comprehension assessments. According to Ander-
son and Pearson (1984), learners who respond to embed-
ded higher order prequestions presumably think more
“deeply” about the upcoming text and activate related
knowledge.
Orienting questions of a conceptual nature improved
both factual learning and problem solving. The corrobo-
ration of these effects from the usage data provides
strong evidence that concept-relevant orienting questions
help learners to activate relevant knowledge that, in turn,
assists them in acquiring unfamiliar lesson content.
Learners demonstrated considerable utility of the orient-
ing questions both during the lesson, as indicated by the
usage patterns, and after the lesson, as indicated by re-
sponses to the attitude questionnaire. Orienting questions
appeared to influence both the methods that learners
used to process knowledge and the resulting learning.
Previous research has shown that orienting questions
have both direct and indirect effects on learning. Direct
learning refers to information explicitly required to an-
swer orienting questions, whereas indirect learning refers
to information related to, but not explicitly addressed in,
the questions (Andre, 1987). Several researchers (Ander-
son & Biddle, 1975; Hamaker, 1986; Rickards, 1979;
Watts & Anderson, 1971) have demonstrated that embed-
ded higher order questions consistently increased both re-
call and application of information. Activating prior
knowledge promotes deeper processing, which, in turn,
promotes more meaningful learning.
Consistent with previous research, informed learners,
on balance, apparently used the orienting questions
more, performed better, and reported more favorable at-
titudes than both those receiving the questions alone and
those receiving no questions. CJnlike previous studies, the
present study’s rationale promoted awareness of the im-
portance and benefits of the orienting questions to spe-
cific learning tasks. For example, one rationale indicated
that questions would help the learner to understand why
offspring from the same parents look different from one
another. The rationale, in effect, improved both learners’
metacognitive knowledge and their ability to regulate
cognition. Regulation of cognition presupposes the ex-
istence of propositional knowledge (knowing what), pro-
cedural knowledge (knowing how), and conditional
knowledge (knowing when and why). It is possible that
providing specific rationales improves each type of
knowledge; this increased knowledge, in turn, improves
learners’ performance (Osman & Hannafin, 1992).
.74*
.68**
Learners in the question-plus-rationale group learned
more, used the orienting questions more successfully, and
.71**
reported more favorable attitudes toward the lesson than
either of the other groups. Those learners also appeared
to better understand how to use the questions and why
 September/October 1994 [Vol. 88(No. l)] 11

Table 5.-Mcan Responses to the Six-Item Attitude Questionnaire

Lesson version
Prior knowledge Basic Basic + questions Questions + rationale Total

Item No. I: I would like to know more about genetics.

High 3.89 3.16 3.42 3.16
Low 3.00 3.60 3.19 3.41
Total 2.94 3.35 3.61. 3.31

Item No. 2: The materials stimulated my curiosity.

High 3.11 3.31 3.14 3.43
Low 3.12 3.07 3.26 3.16
Total 3.14 3.24 3.50 3.30

Item No. 3: The Strategies in this lesson deepened my understanding of genetics.

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 16:09 25 April 2015

High 3.17 3.63 3.19 3.54

Low 3.35 3.60 3.58 3.51
Total 3.26 3.62 3.68 3.52

Item No. 4: I used the asigned strategies throughout the lesson.

High 3.28 3.31 3.89 3.52
Low 3.29 3.21 3.19 3.41
Total 3.29 3.32 3.848 3.50

Item No. 5: The strategies used in this lesson will help me in other learning situations.
High 2.61 3.41 3.63 3.25
Low 3.24 2.87 3.31 3.18
Total 2.91 3.21 3.50. 3.21

Item No. 6: I like the way in which the lesson was presented.
High 3.33 3.42 3.26 3.34
Low 3.41 3.01 3.58 3.31
Total 3.31 3.26 3.42 3.36

Nore. Scale values ranged from strongly diwgwe ( I ) to srrongly agree (5). Questions + rationale was significantly higher
than basic @ < .OS).

they were of value, and they generated more meaningful
use of the questions than the question-only learners.
Not surprisingly, high-prior-knowledge participants
outperformed their low-prior-knowledge counterparts.
This finding is consistent with previous research on
schema theory (Anderson, 1977, 1984; Ausubel, 1%3;
Bransford, 1979). linguistic prior knowledge (Guzzetti,
1984), general prior knowledge (Afflerbach, 1990, Pi-
chert & Anderson, 1977; Recht & Leslie, 1988; Royer,
Perkins, & Konold, 1978), and specific prior knowledge
(Chi, Hutchinson, & Robin, 1989; Derry, 1984, Langer &
Nicolich, 1981; Resnick, 1987). Despite the differences in
types of prior knowledge, researchers have consistently
found that learners with high prior knowledge perform
better than learners with low prior knowledge.
Although prior knowledge interactions between ques-
tions and prior knowledge were not obtained for learn-
ing, we found interactions for perceived utility of the
lesson treatments. Low-prior-knowledge participants ac-
tually perceived greater generalizability for the basic
lesson than the other versions, whereas high-prior-
knowledge participants rated the question versions to be
of greater generalizability. In essence, low participants
rated the lesson version with virtually no metacognitive
support more favorably than either version that incorpo-
rated support. This finding supports Clark’s (1982) con-
tention that individuals often profit least from the in-
struction they prefer most. This may be symptomatic of
the metacognitive problems facing low-prior-knowledge
students more generally. Low-prior-knowledge students,
such as those in this study, often fail to detect problems
of comprehension and, consequently, use ineffective
met hods.
As predicted, orienting questions increased problem
solving proportionately more than factual learning (Af-
flerbach, 1990; Andre, 1987; Hamaker, 1986, Watts &
Anderson, 1971). The problem-solving task was more
complex cognitively, requiring greater depth of under-
 12
standing than simple recall (Gagne, 1985; Markman,
1979). According to Shuell (1988), problem solving in-
volves not only processing and interpreting information
but also the activation of meaningful schemata during
the learning process. Problem solving requires that learn-
ers attend to relevant information, build internal connec-
tions among pieces of information, and establish external
connections between the new information and relevant
prior knowledge (Mayer, 1989). The orienting questions
used in this study were designed to activate existing con-
ceptually relevant knowledge, not simply specific detail-
level knowledge. The questions presumably helped to in-
stantiate schemata emphasizing conceptud versus declar-
ative knowledge, providing a rich supporting context for
comprehending the concepts and rules presented during
the lesson.
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 16:09 25 April 2015
Conclusions
The results of this study indicate that orienting ques-
tions can help students to activate concept-relevant prior
knowledge and anticipatory perspectives, which, in turn,
aid in both the selection and integration of knowledge.
Orienting questions promote cognitive engagement by
helping learners to generate personal perspectives to be
reconciled, rejected, or otherwise reconstructed as new
knowledge is acquired.
The results also indicate that providing a rationale for
orienting-question use improves the probability of its use,
learning, and attitudes toward the questioning methods.
Rationales appear to help students understand the impor-
tance of instructional methods, making their functions
and value more apparent. Students who knew the payoff
of using learning activities were more likely to use them
than those who did not.
The influence of orienting tasks has been studied ex-
tensively with regard to learning, but only rarely as a
metacognitive support aid. Orienting activities, especially
those emphasizing concept-relevant knowledge over
content-relevant knowledge, provide the means through
which learners can identify, activate, and evaluate their
own learning processes and integrate knowledge more
completely. They prompt the learner to make associa-
tions with existing knowledge and provide a yardstick
against which cognition can be monitored. Ideally, the
processes invoked are also internalized by learners and
applied in settings other than the immediate learning set-
ting. In this study, these goals were realized. Further re-
search is needed to assess the generalizability of these
findings to other types of orienting activities and learning
tasks.
REFERENCES
Adams, M.. & Bruce, B. (1980). Background knowledge and reading
comprehension (Tech. Rep. No. 13). University of Illinois, Center
for the Study of Reading, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge and text
Journal of Educational Research
genre on readers’ prediction strategies. Journal of Reading Behav-
ior. 22(2), 131-148.
Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schema and the educational
enterprise. In R. Anderson, R. Spiro, & W. Montague (Eds.),
Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 415-430). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, R. C. (1984). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehen-
sion, learning, and memory. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J.
Tierney (Eds), Learning to read in American schools: Basal reading
and content texts (pp. 243-272). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, R. C., & Biddle. W. B. (1975). On asking people questions
about what they are reading. In G. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of
learning and molivation (Vol. 9, pp. 89-132). New York: Academic
Press.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema theoretic view
of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R.
Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of research
on reading (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman.
Andre, T.(1987). Questions and learning from reading. Questions Ex-
change, I, 47-86.
Andre, T.. & Thieman, A. (1988). Level of adjunct question, type of
feedback, and learning concepts by reading. Contemporury Educa-
tional Psychology, 13, 2%-307.
Ausubel, D. (1%3). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning.
New York: Grune & Stratton.
Ausubel, D. P. (1%8). Educational psychology: A cognitive view.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bransford. J. (1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding.
and remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A.. & Campione, J. C.
(1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell
& E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 111:
Cognitive development (pp. 77-166). New York: Wiley.
Chi, M. T., Hutchinson, J. E.. & Robin, A. F. (1989). How inferences
about novel domain-related concepts can be constrained by struc-
tural knowledge. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 27-62.
Clark, R. (1982). Antagonism between achievement and enjoyment
in AT1 studies. Educational Psychologist, 17(2), 92-101.
Cohen, J. (1988). A statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Derry, S. J. (1984). Effects of an organizer on memory for prose.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 98-107.
Flesch, R. (1962). The art of readable writing. New York: Macmillan.
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Guzzetti, B. J. (1984). The reading process in content fields: A psy-
cholinguistic investigation. Americun Educational Research Jour-
nal, 21, 659-668.
Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learn-
ing. Review of Educational Research, 56. 212-242.
Hamilton, R. (1985). A framework for the evaluation of the effective-
ness of adjunct questions and objectives. Review of Educational
Research, 55, 47-85.
Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. R. (1993). Learning principles. In M.
Fleming & H. Levie (Eds.), lnstruciional message design (2nd ed.,
pp. 191-231). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Pub-
lications.
Hannafin. M. J., & Hughes, C. (1986). A framework for incorporat-
ing orienting activities in computer-based interactive video. Instruc-
tional Science, IS. 239-255.
King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided
student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1).
1 1 1-126.
Langer, J. A.. & Nicolich. M. (1981). Prior knowledge and its rela-
tionship to comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 373-
379.
Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Ele-
mentary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child De-
velopment. 50, 643-655.
Martin, V. L., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative interrogation ef-
fects depend on the nature of the question. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 113-1 19.
Mayer, R. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 19, 30-42.
 September/October 1994 [Vol. WNo. 1)1
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 59,434.
Moorman, G . B., & Blanton, W. E. (1990). The information text
reading activity: Engaging students in meaningful learning. Journal
of Reading, 34(3), 174183.
Nolan, T. (1991).Self questioning and prediction: Combining meta-
cognitive strategies. Journal of Reading, 35, 132-136.
Osman, M.. 8i Hannafin, M. (1992). Metacognition research and
theory: Critical analysis and implications for instructional design.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(2), 83-99.
Pichert. J. W.. & Anderson. R. C. (1977). Taking different perspec-
tives on a story. Journal of Educational Aychology, 69, 309-315.
Pressley, M., Symons, S., McDaniel, M., Snyder, B. L.,& Turnure,
J. E. (1988). Elaborative interrogation facilitates acquisition of con-
fusing facts. Journal of Educational Psychology. 80, 268-278.
Pressley. M.. Tenenbaum, R., McDaniel, M.. & Wood, E. (1990).
What happens when university students try to answer prequestions
that accompany textbook material? Contemporary Educational
Ps~hoiogv,15, n-35.
Pressley, M.,Wood, E.. Woloshyn, V., Martin, V., King, A., Menke,
D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempt-
ing to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educe
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 16:09 25 April 2015
tiona/ Psychologisl, 27(1), 91-109.
Recht. D. R., & Leslie. L. (1988). Effects of prior knowledge on good
and poor readers' memory of text. Journal of Educational Aychol-
OD, m,i6m.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). lnstruction and the cultivation of thinking. In
The UMI Article Clearinghousef i r s articles from more
than 1 1 .OOO copyri@t-ckamd periodicalsin a wide range
of subjects. ybu can place your orders electronically. as
well as by phone. mail, and tdehcsimik. For mom infor-
m#)on. pkasecompkte and rmil MS C O U ~ Oto~UMIMi-
ckCkaringhousc. 3OONorthZecbRoad, Box 1l.Annk
bor. MI 48106 U U . Or call toll-free for an immediate
~sponte:w)o-521-0600. Frwn Alaska and Mkhigan call
collect 313-761-4700. From Canada, call toll-free
-343-5299.
U=M=I
A Bell 81iicwell Company
300 North 2-b Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 USA
13
Cone et al. (Eds.). Learning and instruction: European reseclrrh in
an in1ernational context: Volume I @p. 425-442). Pergamon Press/
Leuven University Press.
Rickards, J. P. (1979). Adjunct postquestions in text: A critical re-
view of methods and processes. Review of Educational Reseamh,
49, 181-1%.
Royer, J. M.,Perkins, M. R., & Konold. C. E. (1978). Evidence for a
selective storage mechanism in prose learning. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 70, 457-462.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition.
In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretkal
issues in reading comprehemion (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Shuell, T. J. (1988). The role of the student in learning from instruc-
tion. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 276295.
Watts. G.H.,& Anderson, R. C. (1971). Effects of three types of in-
serted questions on learning from prose. Journal of Educational
P s ~ h o l o62,
~ , 387-394.
NOTE
This study is based, in part, on M. Osman's dissertation research
completed at Florida State University under M. Hannafin, his thesis
advisor. The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of his
other doctoral committee members: R. Reiser, J. Mayo, and R.
Morgan.
YES! I'd like to know more about UMI Article
ckaringhousc.
Name
Ti*
Companyfinstitution
Mdms.
W--P
TelephoneI
-)