Generative Learning: Principles and Implications for Making Meaning

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, Third Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 111-124

  Lee, Hyeon Woo ^a   Lim, Kyu Yon ^a   Grabowski, Barbara L ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attention: Arousal and intention in the brain that influence an individual s learning processes. Without active, dynamic, and selective attending of environmental stimuli, it follows that meaning generation cannot occur.; Knowledge generation: Generation of understanding through developing relationships between and among ideas.; Meaning making: The process of connecting new information with prior knowledge, affected by one s intention, motivation, and strategies employed.; Motivation processes: Wittrock (1991) specified interest and attribution as being the two essential and linked components of motivation processes activated by arousal and intention through the descending reticular activation system.; Self regulation: Active participation in terms of behavior, motivation, and metacognition in one s own learning process (Zimmerman, 1986).

Indexed keywords

EID: 78751546187     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203880869-12     Document Type: Chapter

References (63)

1. Anderson, R. C. and Biddle, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 9, edited by G. Bower. New York: Academic Press.
2. Anderson, R. C. and Kulhavey, R. W. (1972). Imagery and prose learning. J. Educ. Psychol., 63(3), 242-243.
3. Azevedo, R. and Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training of selfregulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? J. Educ. Psychol., 96, 523-535.
4. Barab, S. A., Young, M. F., and Wang, J. (1999). The effects of navigational and generative activities in hypertext learning on problem solving and comprehension. Int. J. Instruct. Media, 26(3), 283-309.
5. Barnett, J. E., DiVesta, F. J., and Rogonzenski, L. T. (1981). What is learned in notetaking? J. Educ. Psychol., 73(2), 181-192.
6. Beissner, K., Jonassen, D., and Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Using and selecting graphic techniques to convey structural knowledge. In Proceedings of Selected Research Paper Presentations, edited by M. R. Simonson, pp. 79-114. Ames: Iowa State University.
7. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learn. Instruct., 7(2), 161-186.
8. Boekaerts, M. and Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev., 54(2), 199-231.
9. Bonn, K. and Grabowski, B. L. (2001). Generative Learning Theory: A Practical Cousin to Constructivism. Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of Mathematics, January 9-14, New Orleans, LA.
10. BouJaoude, S. and Tamin, R. (1998). Analogies, Summaries, and Question Answering in Middle School Life Science: Effect on Achievement and Perceptions of Instructional Value. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, April 19-22, San Diego, CA (ERIC Document ED 420 503).
11. Brody, P. and Legenza, A. (1980). Can pictorial attributes serve mathemagenic functions? Educ. Commun. Technol. J., 28(1), 25-29
12. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: a problem of metacognition. In Advances in Instructional Psychology, Vol. 1, edited by R. Glaser, pp. 77-165. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Bull, B. L. and Wittrock, M. C. (1973). Imagery in the learning of verbal definitions. Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 43(3), 289-293.
14. Burton, J. K., Niles, J. A., Lalik, R. M., and Reed, M. W. (1986). Cognitive capacity engagement during and following interspersed mathernagenic questions. J. Educ. Psychol., 78(2), 147-152.
15. Carnine, D. and Kinder, C. (1985). Teaching low-performing students to apply generative and schema strategies to narrative and expository materials. Remed. Spec. Educ., 6(1), 20-30.
16. Chularut, P. and DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 29, 248-263.
17. Corno, L. (2001). Volitional aspects of self-regulated learning. In Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives, 2nd ed., edited by B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk, pp. 191-225. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Davis, M. and Hult, R. E. (1997). Effects of writing summaries as a generative learning activity during note taking. Teaching Psychol., 24(1), 47-49.
19. DiVesta, F. T. and Peverley, S. (1984). The effects of encoding variability, processing activity, and rule-examples sequence on the transfer of conceptual rules. J. Educ. Psychol., 76(1), 108-119.
20. Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C., and Marks, C. B. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. J. Educ. Psychol., 70(2), 109-118.
21. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. Am. Psychol., 34, 906-911.
22. Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 26, 3-24.
23. Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd ed., edited by D. H. Jonassen and Association for Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 719-743. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.*
24. Haag, B. B. and Grabowski, B. L. (1994). The effects of varied visual organizational strategies within computer-based instruction on factual, conceptual and problem solving learning. In 16th Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations, edited by M. R. Simonson, N. Maushak, and K. Abu-Omar, pp. 235-246B. Ames: Iowa State University.
25. Harlen, W. and Osborne, R. (1985). A model for learning and teaching applied to primary science. J. Curric. Stud., 17(2), 133-146.
26. Hooper, S., Sales, G., and Rysavy, S. (1994). Generating summaries and analogies alone and in pairs. Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 19, 53-62.
27. Johnsey, A., Morrison, G. R., and Ross, S. M. (1992). Using elaboration strategies training in computer-based instruction to promote generative learning. Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 17, 125-135.
28. Kenny, R. (1995). The generative effects of instructional organizers with computer-based interactive video. J. Educ. Comput. Res., 12(3), 275-296.
29. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and note taking review as strategies for learning from lectures. Am. Educ. Res. J., 29, 303-323.
30. Kourilsky, M. (1993). Economic education and a generative model misleaming and recovery. J. Econ. Educ., 25(Winter), 23-33.
31. Kourilsky, M. and Wittrock, M. C. (1987). Verbal and graphical strategies in teaching economics. Teaching Teacher Educ., 3(1), 1-12.
32. Kourilsky, M. and Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative teaching: an enhancement strategy for the learning of economics in cooperative groups. Am. Educ. Res. J., 29(4), 861-876.
33. Kramarski, B. and Gutman, M. (2006). How can self-regulated learning be supported in mathematical e-learning environments? J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 22, 24-33.
34. Laney, J. D. (1990). Generative teaching and learning of cost benefit analysis: an empirical investigation. J. Res. Dev. Educ., 23(3), 136-144.
35. Lee, Y. and Nelson, D. W. (2005). Viewing or visualizing: which concept map strategy works best on problem-solving performance? Br. J. Educ. Technol., 36(2), 193-203.
36. Linden, M. and Wittrock, M. C. (1981). The teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of generative learning. Reading Res. Q., 17(1), 44-57.
37. Luria, A. (1973). The Working Brain: An Introduction to Neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books.
38. McKeague, C. A. and DiVesta, F. J. (1996). Strategy outcomes, learner activity, and learning outcomes: implications for instructional support of learning. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 44(2), 29-42.
39. Peper, R. J. and Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note taking during science lectures. J. Educ. Psychol., 78(1), 34-38.
40. Pintrich, P. R. and De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. J. Educ. Psychol., 82, 33-40.
41. Rickards, J. P. and August, G. J. (1975). Generative underlining strategies in prose recall. J. Educ. Psychol., 67(6), 860-865.
42. Ritchie, D. and Volkl, C. (2000). Effectiveness of two generative learning strategies in the science classroom. School Sci. Math., 100(2), 83-90.
43. Rummelhart, D. E. (1981). Understanding Understanding [technical report], ERIC Document 198-497. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.
44. Rummelhart, D. E. and Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, edited by R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, and W. E. Montague, pp. 37-53. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. Sayeki, Y., Ueno, N., and Nagasaka, T. (1991). Mediation as a generative model for obtaining an area. Learn. Instruct., 1, 229-242.
46. Shrager, L. and Mayer, R. E. (1989). Note-taking fosters generative learning strategies in novices. J. Educ. Psychol., 81(2), 263-264.
47. Smith, K. and Dwyer, F. M. (1995). The effect of concept mapping strategies in facilitating student achievement. Int. J. Instruct. Media, 22(1), 25-31.
48. Stein, B. S. and Bransford, J. P. (1979). Constraints on effective elaboration: effects of precision and subject generation. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav., 18(6), 769-777.
49. Sutliff, R. (1986). Effect of adjunct postquestions on achievement. J. Indust. Teacher Educ., 23(3), 45-54.
50. Taricani, E. (2002). Effect of the Level of Generativity in Concept Mapping with Knowledge of Correct Response Feedback on Learning, unpublished dissertation. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
51. Wang, C. X. (2003). The Instructional Effects of Prior Knowledge and Three Concept Mapping Strategies in Facilitation Achievement of Different Educational Objectives, unpublished dissertation. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
52. Wittrock, M. C. (1974a). A generative model of mathematics education. J. Res. Math. Educ., 5(4), 181-196.*
53. Wittrock, M. C. (1974b). Learning as a generative process. Educ. Psychol., 19(2), 87-95.*
54. Wittrock, M. C. (1985). Teaching learners generative strategies for enhancing reading comprehension. Theory Pract., 24(2), 123-126.*
55. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educ. Psychol., 24, 345-376.*
56. Wittrock, M. C. (1991). Generative teaching of comprehension. Elem. School J., 92, 167-182.*
57. Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educ. Psychol., 27(4), 531-541.*
58. Wittrock, M. C. and Alesandrini, K. (1990). Generation of summaries and analogies and analytic and holistic abilities. Am. Educ. Res. J., 27, 489-502.
59. Wittrock, M. C. and Carter, J. (1975). Generative processing of hierarchically organized words. Am. J. Psychol., 88(3), 489-501.
60. Woods, J. H. and Bernard, R. M. (1987). Improving older adults retention of text: a test of an instructional activity. Educ. Gerontol., 13(2), 107-112.
61. Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Development of self-regulated academic learning: which are the key subprocesses? Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 16, 307-313.
62. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: an analysis of exemplary instructional models. In Self-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-Reflective Practice, edited by D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman, pp. 1-19. New York: Guilford Press.*
63. Zimmerman, B. J. and Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.