Schema Theory: A Basis for Domain Integration Design.

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 285 561

IR 012 7b7

AUTHOR

Suzuki, Katsuaki

TITLE

Schema Theory: A Basis for Domain Integration

Design.

PUB DATE

Feb 87

NOTE

12p.; Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the

Association for Educational Communications and

Technology (Atlanta, GA, February 26-March 1, 1987).

For the complete proceedings, see IR 012 723.

PUB TYPE

Information Analyses (070) -- Speeches/Conference

Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS

*Behavioral Objectives; *Instructional Design;

Learning Processes; Metacognition; *Outcomes of

Education; *Schemata (Cognition); Skills

IDENTIFIERS

Curriculum Mapping

ABSTRACT

The cognitive and affective domains of learning

outcomes--i.e., intellectual skills, verbal. information, cognitive

strategies, and attitudes--are parts of every schema. Located within

an individual schema, these capabilities are interrelated, and

acquiring one capability is likely to have an effect on other types

of capabilities within the same schema. The central role of the

intellectual skills domain and advantages of integrating various

outcome domains, also known as accompanying objectives, have

implications for instructional design. General types of accompanying

objectives include: (1) the terminal objective, i.e., the ability to

perform the skill; (2) knowing when the skill can be applied; (3) the

ability to use the skill when needed; and (4) choosing to use the

skill. The use of a generic instructional curriculum map (ICM) to

present interrelationships among the related objectives from various

outcome domains may help the instructional designer to select

instructional strategies, and to determine the sequence of

instruction among objectives. Fifteen references are listed. (MES)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.

*******************************************************11***************

Schema Theory: A Basis for Domain Integration Design

Katsuaki Suzuki

Department of Educational Research

Florida State University

Address:

Rm. 307 Stone Bldg

Florida State University

Tallahassee, FL 32306

Paper prepared for the symposium, Application of

Schema Theory to Instructional Design, at the

Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational

Communications and Technology, Atlanta, GA (March,

1987) .

Schema Theory: A

In recent

structure have

of schemata

Schemata are

knowledge.

of knowledg

interconnec

concept

(Gagn;f.,

schema re

the schem

influenc

interpre

learni

in var

tion

capab

inst

dis

Fin

Basis for Domain Integration Design

Katsuaki Suzuki

Florida State University

years, human cognition and knowledge

been extensively investigated in terms

e.g., Anderson, 1984a; Rumelhart, 1980).

claimed to be the basic units of human

A schema is defined as "an organized body

e, conceived theoretically as a set of

ted propositions centering around a general

d linked peripherally with other concepts

86, p. 12)". It has been demonstrated by

search (e.g., Richert & Anderson, 1977) that

ata existing in a person's knowledge structure

e the way newly-coming information is

ted and acquired.

hema theory explains internal conditions of

ng, which can be applied in instructional design

ious ways.

In this paper, schematic interpreta-

of human cognition is first related to human

ilities, for which instruction is designed.

Then,

ructional implication of the schema theory will be

ussed for integration of learning outcome domains.

ally, procedures for the design of instruction will

suggested emphasizing integration of various outcome

mains.

Schema and Associated Domains of Learning Outcomes

In order to relate schematic representation of

human knowledge and instructional design, it is helpful

to describe a schema in terms of the domains of learning

outcomes; intellectual skills, verbal information,

cognitive stragegies, attitudes, and motor skills

(Gagn6, 1985).

The domain of learning outcomes must be

identified for each objective in instruction because it

informs an instructional designer of a distinctive set

of effective instructional strategies.

In this sense,

analyzing a schema into the domains of learning

outcomes may enable us to identify what exactly a

schema is, in relation to how we can facilitate the

learning of it.

A schema is said to be formed around a general

concept, which belongs to the domain of intellectual

skills.

Concepts are intellectual skills in that they

provide rules for classifying incoming information

(Gagn6, 1985). Such a function is known as "ideational

scaffolding (Anderson, 1984a)", for which the "slot"

structure of a schema is utilized.

For example, if o.le

has a schema for "monument", he or she can tell if a

given description is about a monument or not by

applying such classification rules as "Is it a

structure (such as a building or sculpture)?" and "Is

it for a memorial?"

If the slot for the memorial

cannot be filled out by a person or event from the

description, then the example may not be considered to

be a monument, but a mere building.

Thus, by using the

monument schema, and other related schemata, one can

classify instances of monuments and other related

concepts (e.g.,

ordinary buildings, memorial holidays).

A schema also contains individual examples of the

schema, which are in the verbal information domain. A

schema has accumulated instances of the general

concept.

These instances are known as "instantiations"

of the schema (Anderson, 1984a).

For example, the

"monument schema" may contain the facts about the

Washington Monument as an instantiation; about its

location, history, configuration, and to whom it is

dedicated.

Other related information may be associated

with the monument schema, including episodic facts

(e.g., when the learner saw the monument, with whom,

the weather of the day, etc.), and historical notes of

the dedicator.

Another type of cognitive capability is associated

with a schema, which can be classified in the domain of

cognitive strategies.

Cognitive strategies control

internal information-procos-dAg, which are also known

as "metacognition", or more specifically, "self-

regulatory mechanisms used by an active learner"

(Armbruster & Brown, 1984, p. 274). Each schema not

only has intellectual skills and verbal information,

but also is equipped with cognitiv:_ strategies.

Rumelhart (1980) has stated: "Embedded in these packets

of knowledge [i.e. schemata] is, in addition to the

knowledge itself, information about how this knowledge

is to be used" (p. 34).

Although cognitive strategies

for general uses may be located elsewhere, the

strategies employed mainly for the learning about

monuments (i.e. domain specific strategies) is best

placed within the monument schema.

It is natural to assume that attitudes are related

to schemata, toward which the attitudes are formed.

Schemata are formed around general concepts of objects,

situations, and events. Attitudes are "internal states

that influence the individual's choice of personal

action [toward some category of objects, persons, or

events]" (Gagng, 1985, p. 219).

Thus, each schema is

likely to be accompanied with an affective proposition

about that schema, which influences personal choices

associated with the schema.

If a person is not

interested in history in general, he or she may not

choose to visit or study about monuments, for example.

A student of history and of architecture may develop

very different schemata of monuments because of their

different interests.

Although knowing something is

different from liking something, attitudes seem to be a

part of schemata.

In short, both cognitive and affective domains of

learning outcomes seem to be parts of each schema.

That is, a schema may be related to capabilities of

intellectual skills, verbal information, cognitive

strategies, and attitudes.

Located within an

individual schema, these various capabilities are

related to each other.

Acquiring one capability is

likely to have an effect on other types of capabilities

within the same schema.

From Schema Theory To Doman Integration Design

Gagne's (1985) distinction between the domains of

verbal information and intellectual skills can be made

parallel to the types of learning processes proposed by

schema theorists.

When verbal information is learned,

no change in schema structure is necessary; in-comirg

information will be assimilated to an existing schema

using existing "slots" of the schema.

If you learn

about a monument in Japan, for example, you will use

the same fact categories that are used to learn about

the Washington Monument: its location, history,

configuration, and to whom it is dedicated. In other

words, the existing "monument schema" will be activated

(Bransford, 1984) to assimilate another instantiation

of the schema.

Rumelhart and Norman (1978) have called

this process "accretion".

In contrast, when a child learns what a monument

is, he or she is acquiring the slots in "monument

schema". The Washington Monument may be used to

exemplify the classification rules of the monument

concept.

However, it is not the main objective of the

learning to be able to state the facts about the

Washington Monument. Instead, the objective is to

organize the "monument schema" so that new information

can be judged as to wether it is about another monument

or not.

This process involves either tuning up the

existing "monument schema", which is not yet well-

articulated, or creating a new "monument schema" by

using existing similar schemata.

Schema theory appears to be compatible with the

notion of intellectual skills as building blocks for

the design of instruction (Gagne & Briggs, 1979).

Rumelhart and Norman (1978) have distinguished these

processes of the evolution of existing schemata

(tuning) and the ore, ion of new ones (restructuring)

as different modes of learning from the accretion

process.

These authors have also argued that the

tuning and restructuring processes are not as frequent

as accretion, but more significant. Without a change

in schema structure, new concepts cannot be formed. On

the other hand, when an intellectual skill is learned,

the basic structure of the schema surrounding that

skill is formulated.

Because the memory structure is

built by interrelated schemata, instruction may best be

planned for finishing up such a structure when a

lesson, or section is completed.

Even when a target objective is not an

intellectual skill, it may be advantageous to relate

the target objective to an intellectual skill

objective.

That is, try to identify and help

formulating a more structured schema surrounding that

target objective by adding related intellectual skill

objectives.

For example, the terminal objective for a

math lesson may be to memorize conversion formulas

among metric units of length, area, anti volume

measurements.

The learners could try to memorize all

individual formulas (e.g.,

1 m2 = 10000 cm2). However,

after studying the formulas for length, the learners

can be introduced to a rule that relates length with

area and volume.

Once thiq rule is acquired, the

learner does not need to remember all of the formulas,

but only the formulas for length and how to apply them

for area and volume (e.g.,

1 m = 100 cm; tus, 1 m2 =

1 T x 1 m = 100 cm x 100 cm = 100 x 100 cm

= 10000

cm ).

A more structured schema, which includes more

intellectual skills, will enable the learner to

transfer the structure to formulate ano_her schema when

needed.

The more structured a schema becomes, the more

useful it is for further learnii.g.

Anderson (1984b)

has pointed out that school education is likely to

reinforce the "weak" views of knowledge by teaching

individual facts separately.

By using intellectual

skills as the building blocks of curriculum, we may

also be able to support a strong 'view of knowledge,

with which the learners will try to utilize what they

know in a constructive manner.

Another implication from the schema theory is to

integrate various domains of learning outcomes, which

presumably are associated with the schema of the

terminal intellectual skill objective.

The basic units

of memory structure are schemata, and each of the

schemata is more than its core intellectual skill.

Therefore, oGher related capabilities can also be

learned to make the new learning more com2lete.

For the sake of argument, such capabilities may be

called as "accompanying objectives".

Instruction would

be designed for an intellectual skill terminal

objective and its accompanying objectives.

The

accompanying objectives are NOT subordinate to the

terminal objective in the sense of "essential

prerequisites", the absence of which disabl

tine

learning of the terrjnal objective.

Although these

related capabilities may support the learning of the

terminal objective

(i.e.,

"supportive prerequisites"),

the accompl!shment of the accompanying objectives are,

for themselves, terminal.

The teminal intellectual

skill objective plus the accorpanying objectives may

represent more complete schema than the intellectual

skill alone.

Various types of accompanying objectives have been

proposed in the literature in several different terms.

White and Mayer (1980) proposed a c]assification system

of verbal information related to the learning of an

intellectual skill into productive and unproductive

types.

Accompanying cognitive strategies have been

investigated by the learning strategy researchers.

Derry and Murphy (1986) have proposed that the learning

f cognitive strategies be embodied into the cognitive

skill and knowledge instruction after the initial

exposure to the strategies.

An intellectual skill and

an accompanying attitud

are called "twin objectives"

by Briggs and Wager (1981), who have suggested the

inclusion of an attitude counterpart of the target

objective in lesson and unit design.

Other related

affective outcomes have been integrated in design of

cognitive outcome domains by Martin and Briggs (1986)

and Keller

(1983).

Given a specific lesson objective, cr.e may be able

to derive accompanying objectives by seeking a more

complete schema.

To follow Gagne's approach in

constructing learning hierarchies, a question can be

asked:

"What else can the learner learn in order to

enhance the schema related to the target intellectual

skill objective, absence of which restricts the

utilization of the target skill?"

The target objective

alone will be sufficient for a learner to demonstrate

the skill when and if so asked.

However, the

accompanying objectives will help in enhancing the

surrounding schema, with which the target skill may

better be utilized for practical situations, or for

related learning tasks. In other words, when this

question is asked, not only the end-of-lesson

accomplishments, but also long-term effects should be

taken into consideration.

In order for the target skill to be utilized, a

learner must be able to perform the skill.

addition, there seem to be several other general types

of the accompanying capabilities.

The learner must:

(1) be able to perform the skill (terminal

objective).

(2) know when the skill can be applied (contextual

knowledge; verbal information).

(3) be able to use the skill when needed

(initiating internal processes; cognitive

strategies).

(4) choose to use the skill (positive attitude

toward using the skill).

In Figure 1, these terminal and accompanying

objectives, and some other supporting objectives are

summarized in the form of a generic Instructional

Curriculum Map (ICM, Briggs & Wager, 1981).

The ICM

presents hypothesized interrelationships among the

related objectives from various outcome domains. It

should be helpful for an instructional designer to

visualize how objectives from different domains of

learning outcomes may help each other. It may be used

to select instructional strategies, as well as to

determine the sequence of instruction among the

depicted objectives.

_.,

(----<A.---

CHOOSE

USE/

THE NEWLY

LEARNED

CHOOSE

STUDY

SKI LL

STUDY

ABOUT

SKILL!

THE

TERMINAL

INTELLECTUAL

L_SKILL

TSUBORDINATE1

1,-SUBORUcINATE

1 SKILL

SKILL

STATE THE

'USEFUL

.--;p

SKILL'S

4 CONTEXTS FOR

VALUE OF

LEARNING

THE SKILL

STRATEGIES

APPLICATION

Note: Dotted box indicates

an intellectual skill

learning hierarchy.

The arrow shows inputs

from other domains,

<-41--

intellectual skills

Attitudes

Cognitive strate' es

Verbal information

Figure 1. Generic ICM Summarizing Accompanying

Objectives.

Concluding Remarks

Looking at the schema theory of human cognition,

this paper discussed some implications for designing

instruction.

These implications include the central

role of the intellectual skills domain in learning and

the advantages of integrating various outcome domains

in instructional design.

The notion of accompanying

objectives was proposed to design an instructional

segment for a richer learning outcome, which presumably

represents a more complete state of the surrounding

scnema.

Instructional Curriculum Maps are employed as

visual representations for integrating various domain

of learning outcomes in design effort.

In order to apply the two implications emerged

from the schema theory, the procedures for the

instructional design will be as follows:

Define the lesson objective. If the lesson

objective is not an intellectual skill, find a

related intellectual skill.

2. Lay out essential subordinate skills,

constructing a learning heirarchy.

Explore accompanying objectives that help

utilizing the teminal skill.

The generic ICM

(Figure 1)

may be helpful at this point.

4. Lay out the accompanying objectives and other

supportive objectives, forming an ICM.

Determine the instructional strategies for the

terminal objective taking other objectives

into account.

It is the presenter's hope that a strong view of

knowledge (Anderson, 1984b) will be emphasized in as

many occasions as possible whenever an instructional

segment is systematically designed.

To accomplish that

end, it seems to be a good course of action to

emphasize the domain of intellectual skills and also to

take other types of learning outcomes into account.

integrating various outcome domains in instructional

design,

we can also develop positive attitudes toward

learning, knowledge for applying the learned skills,

and strategies for learning within the instrucion

emphasizing the learning of intellectual skills.

References

Anderson, R. C. (1984a). Role of the reader's schema in

comprehension, learning, and memory.

In R. C.

Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney (Eds.),

Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers

and content texts.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Anderson, R. C.

(1984b). Some reflections on the

acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher,

13, 5

10.

Armbruster, B. B., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Learning from

reading:

The role of meta-cognition.

In R.

Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney (Eds.),

Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers

and content texts.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Bransford, J.

(1984). S-thema activation and schema

acquisition: Comments on Richard C. Anderson's

remarks.

In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J.

Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American

schools: Basal readers and content texts.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1981). Handbook of the

procedures for the design of instruction (2nd Ed.).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology

Publications.

Derry, S. J., & Murphy, D. A. (1986). Designing systems

that train learning ability: From theory to

practice.

Review of Educational Research, 56,

1 - 39.

Gagne.,

R. r.

(1985). The conditions of learning and

theory of instruction (4tn Ed.).

New York:

Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston.

Gagne,

R. M. (1986. Instructional technology: The

research field. Journal of Instructional

Development, 8(3),

14.

Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979).

Principles of

instructional design (2nd Ed.). New York: Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston.

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of

instruction. In, C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),

Instructional-design theories and models: An

overview of their current status.

Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Martin, B. L., & Briggs, L, J. (1986). The affective

and cognitive domains: Integration for instruction

and research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational

Technology Publications.

Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking

different perspectives on a story.

Journal of

Educational Psychology, 69, 309

315.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980).

Schemata: The building blocks

of cognition.

In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F.

Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading

comprehension.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associares.

Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion,

tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning.

In J.

:. Cotton, & R. L. Flatzky (Eds.) , Semantic

factors in cognition.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

White, R. T., & Mayer, R. F. (1980). Understanding

intellectual skills.

Instructional Science,

101

127.