System 34 (2006) 416–431

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

SYSTEM

Decreasing cognitive load for novice EFLlearners: Effects of question and descriptive

advance organizers in facilitating EFLlearners’ comprehension of an animation-based

content lesson

Huifen Lin *, Tsuiping Chen

Applied English Department, Kun Shan University, 949 Da-Wan Road, Yung-Kang City,

Tainan Hsien, 71003, Taiwan, ROC

Received 16 October 2005; received in revised form 24 March 2006; accepted 19 April 2006

Abstract

Cognitive load can be defined as the amount of mental effort that performing a specific taskimposes on a learner’s cognitive system. It can be measured by the number of new concepts embed-ded in a learning task. English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, with their limited English pro-ficiency and minimal entry knowledge of a subject matter, always find it incomprehensible oroverwhelming to comprehend a content lesson delivered in English. This study investigated the effectof two types of advance organizers, e.g., question and descriptive advance organizers in enhancingEFL learners’ comprehension of an animation-based content lesson. Eighty-six EFL learners in auniversity of technology in Taiwan participated voluntarily in this study. After taking the readingcomprehension subtest of Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), students were randomlyassigned to three treatment lessons: (1) an animated lesson; (2) an animation lesson embedded withquestion advance organizers; and (3) an animation lesson embedded with descriptive advance orga-nizers. The results showed that the question advance organizer is the most effective cognitive strategyto enhance EFL learners’ comprehension of the content-based lesson. No significant difference wasfound between animation alone and animation embedded with descriptive advance organizers withregard to students’ achievement.� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0346-251X/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.04.008

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 6 2050 620; fax: +886 6 205 0995.E-mail address: huifen5612@yahoo.com.tw (H. Lin).

H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431 417

Keywords: Content-based instruction; Advance organizers; Animation; Computer-based instruction; English as aForeign Language instruction; Reading comprehension; Cognitive load

1. Introduction

Cognitive load is defined as ‘‘the amount of mental effort required to locate specificinformation and to understand how this information is oriented within a larger informa-tion source’’ (Eveland and Dunwoody, 2001, p. 57). Researchers have suggested that theamount of cognitive load depends more on learners’ initial familiarity with the learningcontent than on the nature of the learning task (Meyer, 2000). For both native andnon-native English-speaking learners, content involving many new and unfamiliar con-cepts is expected to cause a heavy cognitive demand. Learners’ entry knowledge of the sub-ject matter will aid their learning of the new concepts since the entry knowledge willprovide both ‘‘linguistic and non-linguistic clues’’ of the new lesson (p. 229). However,for most EFL learners, when confronted with a specific subject matter with which theyhave little familiarity, the problems are exacerbated because of limited language profi-ciency. Certain cognitive strategies have to be employed to reduce the cognitive load.The paper reported the findings of an experimental study conducted to investigate theeffect of two types of advance organizers used to reduce cognitive load in EFL learners’comprehension of an animation-based content lesson.

2. Content-based instruction (CBI)

Content-based instruction (CBI) is a curriculum that is developed as a communicativeapproach centered around helping language learners achieve language proficiency bylearning the subject matter conveyed in the target language. There has long been interestamong second language as well as foreign language educators to seek ways to combinelanguage learning with the study of content conveyed in the specific target language (Lea-ver and Stryker, 1989). The need for and popularity of CBI have become apparent and ithas been successfully implemented in a variety of settings (Leaver and Stryker, 1989).According to Leaver and Stryker, CBI has been implemented in foreign language class-rooms/programs using such course titles as business or technical foreign language orlanguage for a specific purpose. The advantages of CBI, such as enhanced motivation,self-confidence, L2 proficiency, and cultural literacy, have been described by learners expe-rienced with various levels of CBI. Bloom (1987) and Hirsch (1987) suggested that to beable to benefit from CBI, language learners must possess specific prerequisite cognitiveskills. Without taking such learning prerequisites into CBI design consideration, instruc-tors may find it challenging as to how to ‘‘elicit content area knowledge’’ from their stu-dents (p. 274). In other words, to plan successful content-based lessons, certainenhancement strategies must be incorporated to help learners build cognitive foundationswhile they learn the subject matter using their current language skills.

3. Advance organizers

Ausubel (1960) suggested that in order for new learning material to become meaningfuland ready to be ‘‘subsumed’’ into the learners’ current cognitive structure, instructors

418 H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431

should be actively ‘‘. . .selecting, organizing, presenting, and translating subject-mattercontent in a developmentally appropriate manner. . ..’’ (p. 268). He further proposed thatadvance organizers of different types may be used to improve the organization of the to-be-learned material and therefore facilitate learners’ understanding of the material.

A large body of research has looked into the design, use, and effectiveness of variousadvance organizers in facilitating language learning (Chung and Huang, 1998). Advanceorganizers implemented by first or second language educators take various forms suchas videos (Hanley et al., 1995), verbal descriptions (Herron et al., 1998; Kirkman andShaw, 1997), graphics (Alvermann, 1981), questioning (Denner and Rickards, 1987; Glo-ver, 1989; King, 1992; Osman and Hannafin, 1994) and aural descriptions (Chung andHuang, 1998).

In a study conducted by Alvermann (1981) to investigate the compensatory effect ofgraphic organizers on poorly organized descriptive text, two versions of passages differentin structure were used (comparison versus description) and immediate free recall and delayfree recall were administered to measure the effect. The results suggested that the experi-mental groups outperformed the control group only on the recall of descriptive text con-dition. The study concluded that organizers can facilitate recall when reorganizinginformation is necessary. Kirkman and Shaw (1997) studied the effects of an oral advanceorganizer on the immediate and delayed retention of students’ knowledge of food andnutrition when controlling for the learner’s prior knowledge and utilizing paraphrasingas a rehearsal strategy prior to the oral instruction. The results suggested that advanceorganizers were not effective in facilitating immediate and delayed retention of the knowl-edge. Nor did the paraphrasing advance organizers given prior to oral instruction facilitatethe students’ recall of the material.

Advance organizers have been used in the teaching of subjects such as chemistry, math-ematics, physics, and biology in the first language contexts. Their applications in second/foreign language teaching were also observed. One empirical study conducted to comparetwo different types of advance organizers is, in particular, related to this study. Herronet al. (1998) conducted a comparison study on the effect of declarative versus interrogativeadvance organizers on some students’ retention of a foreign language video. The subjectswere 67 college students enrolled in a beginning level French course. The results suggestedthat the introduction of advance organizers prior to the viewing of the video facilitated thestudents’ listening comprehension of the video. However, both declarative and interroga-tive advance organizers were equally effective in facilitating listening to the foreign lan-guage. In another study, Hanley et al. (1995) compared two visual advance organizersin the comprehension and retention of a written French passage. Sixty-two English-speak-ing students from the fifth grade in an elementary school comprised the subjects. Theywere randomly assigned to the video advance organizer treatment or pictures plus a tea-cher narrative treatment. The findings suggested that the video advance organizer wasmore effective than the picture plus teacher narrative in enhancing the comprehensionof a foreign text.

Another study was conducted by Ginther (2002) to investigate the effect of visuals asadvance organizers in facilitating students’ listening comprehension as evaluated by theirperformance in different types of tasks involving audio – dialogues/short conversations,academic discussions, and mini-talks. The results indicated that providing visuals thatcomplement the audio portion of the learning task facilitates the performance ofthat task. Vandergrift (2004) indicated that advance organizers that contain visuals that

H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431 419

are directly related to the content are more effective than those that provided context-related information in facilitating students’ comprehension of the subject matter. In Her-ron and his colleagues’ study, the questions used as advance organizers prior to videowatching were different from those appearing on the comprehension test. The authorssuspected that this may have misdirected students’ attention to the wrong portion ofthe video clip.

Our study investigated the use of advance organizers as a potential strategy to enhanceanimated instruction designed to deliver a content-based lesson in an EFL context. Specif-ically, the study was different from previous studies in several aspects: (1) the animation(dynamic visuals) used were designed to complement the verbal (textual) portion of thecontent; (2) the animation was content-based rather than context-based and, therefore,each sequence of animation displayed information directly related to the content, forexample, the blood flow through the heart and the phases of the heart cycle; (3) questionsas advance organizers were used to focus students’ attention on crucial information of thecontent and were related but not the same as the posttest questions; (4) the study evaluatedthe effect of advance organizers on specific levels of learning in addition to their overallimpact on student learning, as the posttests consisted of four tests that measured simpleverbal/factual knowledge to more advanced comprehension of the content; and (5) no pre-vious studies have looked at the effect of advance organizers to complement animation inan EFL context. Specifically, the study compared two types of advance organizers, e.g.,question versus descriptive, used to reduce cognitive load and complement animationdesigned and developed to deliver a content-based lesson in an EFL setting. The researchaddressed the following question:

What is the relative effectiveness of using question versus descriptive advance orga-nizers as cognitive strategies to facilitate EFL learners’ comprehension of an anima-tion-based content lesson?

We hypothesized that students receiving question advance organizers would scorehigher than those who received the descriptive advance organizer treatment and the differ-ence will be the greatest in the more difficult tests, i.e., the terminology and comprehensiontests. The achievement of these tests required thorough comprehension and application ofverbal/factual knowledge. The hypothesis was based on the results of previous research(Osman and Hannafin, 1994; Anderson and Biddle, 1975) as well as from the perspectiveof human information processing. Previous research has found that questions of variedtypes can encourage learners to integrate new knowledge into their existing cognitivestructures and the level of information processing triggered by such inserted questionswas comparatively higher than that of simply reviewing descriptive statements.

We also hypothesized that descriptive advance organizers would improve the stu-dents’ achievement in lower-level tests, i.e., drawing and identification tests when com-pared to no intervention at all. Since the descriptive advance organizer interventiondraws students’ attention to important upcoming material but did not engage them infurther processing of the content in the organizers, the level of achievement resultingfrom this intervention might be minimal. However, descriptive advance organizers wouldstill be beneficial to lower-level learning objectives, such as simple factual knowledge,compared to no advance organizers at all since in the latter treatment, students wereat a disadvantage because they were forced to ‘‘mindfully’’ generate their own organizersfor the new material.

420 H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431

4. Research methodology

4.1. Participants

The participants in this study were 86 undergraduate students (16 males and 70 females)enrolled in two intermediate EFL reading sections in an applied English department in auniversity in Taiwan. The age of the participants ranged between 19 and 25 years. All ofthe students were sophomores at the time of the study and have been studying English as aforeign language for at least 7 years. None of the students have ever had experience in liv-ing or studying in an English-speaking country. These students’ overall English ability wasat the low-intermediate level according to the American Council on the Teaching of For-eign Languages (ACTFL).

The department has two sets of curricula options offered to its students depending ontheir prospective career choices. One option is to develop the students’ ability to pursuefurther graduate studies in language-related areas upon graduation; the other is to preparejob-hunting skills/training for students who would consider entering the job marketrelated to foreign languages immediately upon graduation. Students are advised to makethe decision during their second year in the program. Both curricula options offer generallanguage skill courses, e.g., English speaking, listening, reading, and writing. However,such specialized courses as Business English Writing, International Trade Practice, andTESOL Methodology are offered to students who have the career option in mind, whileAmerican Literature, Introduction to Linguistics, and Introduction to Western Literatureare offered to those who intend to pursue further studies in language or linguistic areas.

The participants in this study came from two sections of an intermediate EFL readingclass. Both sections included students from two curricula options. The English readingclass, designed to provide students with exposure to reading materials of different genres,is analogous to reading for a specific purpose. The major goal of the class was for studentsto encounter English in its specific context. All reading materials selected were authenticand written for native English speakers; the topics ranged from business, economy, sci-ence, art, and physiology. The content selected specifically for the study was novel tothe students and was marginally related to their current fields of study.

The participants were randomly assigned to three treatment groups, e.g., an animatedlesson alone (A), an animated lesson embedded with question advance organizers (A + Q),and an animated lesson embedded with descriptive advance organizers (A + D). Studentstook the reading subtest of TOEFL prior to receiving each respective treatment. The scoreof the reading comprehension was used as a covariate to adjust for any initial difference intheir reading ability. Students in this study possessed little or no prior knowledge of thesubject content. Immediately after receiving their respective instructional treatment, stu-dents took four criterion measures to test their comprehension of the content lesson.

4.2. Instructional material

4.2.1. Animation-based content lesson

The instructional material used in this study contained a 2000-word physiology unitfocusing on the human heart, its parts, locations, and functions during the diastolic andsystolic phases. The instructional script was accompanied by 20 static visuals of the humanheart. This text contains both general physiology knowledge that English native speakers

H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431 421

might typically learn in their high schools as well as more complex concepts likely learnedin their college freshman physiology class. For EFL learners in this study, however, thesubject matter is unfamiliar although they may have been exposed to portions of the mate-rial at a very basic level in Chinese earlier in their junior high health and physical educa-tion courses. The material was further developed into a computer-based instructionalmodule by converting the static visuals into animated visuals, so that learners would havean opportunity to interact with the visual animation. The software packages used todevelop the CBI are Adobe PhotoShop, Macromedia Dreamweaver, and MacromediaFlash 6. The comprehensive animated sequences utilized progressive reveal, motion,pop-in verbal, motion, contraction, and expansion. These functions were used inter-changeably or in combination to draw students’ attention to specific parts of the humanheart and their function by zooming into the parts, making contrasts by using pointingarrows, or showing the motion of the flow of the blood in the heart. The purpose ofthe animated visuals is to illustrate concepts related to the instructional material that ishard to demonstrate using static visuals. Students were allowed to review the animatedvisuals as many times as needed by clicking on the ‘‘play the animation’’ button. A samplescreenshot of the animation lesson is provided in Fig. 1. This animation-based content les-son was used as the base material and was the lesson received by participants in the ani-mation lesson treatment (A). The study was self-paced. The tests used to evaluate studentachievement resulting from the intervention and the results are reported below.

Fig. 1. Sample screenshot of instructional material received by the animation (A) group.

422 H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431

4.2.2. Two experimental treatments

Three treatment lessons contained identical instructional content as described abovebut the two experimental groups (A + Q and A + D) received advance organizers embed-ded into the animation lesson. The following is a description of each of the experimentaltreatments.

4.2.2.1. Animation + question advance organizer treatment. Participants in this treatmentreceived additional enhancements, e.g., question advance organizers prior to their encoun-tering the content lesson in each frame. Specifically, a question advance organizer wasembedded in advance of each frame. Each question advance organizer was accompaniedby a static visual and asked a question concerning the main concepts contained in theupcoming frame. The question was followed by 4–5 alternatives. The right answer tothe question was provided in a pop-up window shortly after the appearance of the ques-tion. The right answer was accompanied with a simple reiteration of the concept addressedin the question. Fig. 2 is a sample screenshot of the question advance organizer (with pop-up answer).

4.2.2.2. Animation + descriptive advance organizer treatment. Participants in this treatmentgroup received an animation lesson and descriptive advance organizers embedded prior

Fig. 2. Sample screenshot of instructional material received by the animation plus question advance organizer(A + Q) group.

H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431 423

to each instructional frame. Each descriptive advance organizer was written as a state-ment summarizing the most important concepts to be encountered in the upcomingframe; in addition, the descriptive advance organizer was accompanied by a static visual,which was the same visual as was used in the question advance organizer treatment.Fig. 3 presents a sample screenshot of the frame that contains a descriptive advanceorganizer.

The purpose of the two embedded advance organizers was analogous to that of a lessonpreview. In this study, the preview was presented as either a question or descriptiveadvance organizer placed prior to each corresponding instructional frame. Both types ofadvance organizers have an anchoring function that directs students’ attention to crucialconcepts contained in the new material. However, the question form of advance organizersrequired a covert response from students; it also aided them in recalling prerequisitesstored in the long-term memory into short-term memory so as to enable the integrationof previously learned information with the new information. Both types of advance orga-nizers differ from other types of advance organizers in two ways. Firstly, the function ofadvance organizers used in this study was complementary. That is, they were used to helpstudents comprehend the difficult information contained in the animated lesson. Theywere designed to compensate understanding of selected concepts but not the entirematerial. Secondly, the advance organizers preceding the instructional frames organized

Fig. 3. Sample screenshot of instructional material received by the animation plus descriptive advance organizer(A + D) group.

424 H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431

information into ‘‘. . .manageable chunks or propositions. . .’’ to facilitate processing andunderstanding (Wager and Mory, 1993, p. 65). They are unlike other forms of advanceorganizers in which information is not chunked and is presented before the entire materialin a form as a single graphic or concept map.

4.3. Criterion tests

In order to measure the achievement of the learners in this content, four criterion mea-sures were developed: one drawing test and three 20-item multiple choice posttests. Thecontent validity of the tests has been established by medical faculty members, who haveverified that test items were congruent with instructional objectives and that all test itemscan be answered from the content presented. The KR-20 reliability index was used toestablish the reliability of each criterion test. The following is a brief description of eachcriterion measure and its corresponding K-R reliability.

4.3.1. Drawing test (K-R reliability = 0.83)

The test provides students with a numbered list of terms corresponding to the parts ofthe heart discussed in the instructional presentation. Students are required to draw a rep-resentative diagram of the heart and place the numbers of the listed parts in their respec-tive positions. For this test the emphasis is on the correct positioning of the verbal symbolswith respect to one another and in respect to their concrete referents. The test measuredsimple verbal and factual knowledge and can be classified as a lower-level learningoutcome.

4.3.2. Identification test (K-R reliability = 0.81)

The objective of the identification test is to evaluate students’ ability to identify parts orpositions of an object. This multiple-choice test requires students to identify the numberedparts on a detailed drawing of the heart. The objective of this test is to measure students’ability to use visual cues to discriminate one structure of the heart from another and toassociate specific parts of the heart with their proper names. As with the drawing test,the test measured the lower-level learning outcome.

4.3.3. Terminology test (K-R reliability = 0.89)

This test consists of items designed to measure knowledge of specific facts, terms, anddefinitions. The objectives measured by this type of test are appropriate to all contentareas in which an understanding of the basic elements is a prerequisite to the learningof more complicated concepts. The test measures simple concepts and procedure knowl-edge and can be classified as measuring an intermediate learning outcome.

4.3.4. Comprehension test (K-R reliability = 0.92)

Given the location of certain parts of the heart at a particular moment of its function-ing, the students are asked to determine the position of other specified parts of the heart atthe same time. This test requires that the students have a thorough understanding of theheart, its parts, its internal functioning, and the simultaneous processes occurring duringthe systolic and diastolic phases. The test is the most difficult of the four tests and measuresthe higher-level learning objectives.

H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431 425

4.3.5. Total test score (K-R reliability = 0.90)

The scores of the individual criterion tests are combined into a composite test score.The purpose is to measure students’ total comprehension of the content contained inthe instructional module.

4.4. Procedures

Prior to receiving their respective treatments, students were given a reading comprehen-sion test, a subtest of TOEFL during their normally scheduled class hour. On the day ofthe study, students reported to a multimedia language lab in which each student wasseated in front of an IBM computer in which each specific treatment was installed andthe introduction page was displayed. Students were randomly assigned to each treatment.Prior to the study, the researcher debriefed the entire procedure. Students were informedthat there was no limitation in the amount of time required to finish the study and thatthey were strongly encouraged to comprehend as much as possible the instructional mate-rial by taking advantage of the static visuals, animation, and advance organizers.

Students were informed that they should read the instructional material in the sequencein which it was presented for the first time; however, they could review the parts of theinstructional content that they found especially difficult in any order and as many timesas needed by operating the navigation buttons. Four criterion tests were given immediatelyafter students finished the instructional material. The material used in the study waspiloted tested separately using five English native speakers and five non-native Englishspeakers, mainly to determine approximately the amount of time needed to completethe instructional material. On average, it required some 50 min for native English speakersand about 1.5 h for non-native speakers to complete the instruction and four tests. Thetesting procedure also served the purpose of detecting any technical problems before theexperiment was conducted. At an earlier stage when the treatment material was developed,the same subjects were used to provide feedback on the visuals used in the study and pre-sentation format of the material.

5. Results

ANCOVA was the statistical method used to compare the mean differences in students’achievement scores among the three treatment lessons. The independent variable, thetreatment lesson, included three levels: the animation lesson alone, the animation lessonplus question advance organizers, and the animation lesson plus descriptive advance orga-nizers. The dependent variables were four criterion measures: the drawing test, the identi-fication test, the terminology test, the comprehension test, and a total test score. Thestudents’ English reading subtest score was used as a covariate to minimize the influenceof initial difference in reading comprehension on the achievement of the criterion tests. Theadjusted means with standard errors are summarized in Table 1. The descriptive statisticsin Table 1 indicated a trend in the direction of an advantage for the use of question-typeadvance organizers. Participants in the (A + Q) group scored higher in all tests than thosein either the (A) or (A + D) groups. There were almost no differences between the (A) and(A + D) groups in all tests except for the drawing test, in which the (A + D) group out-performed the (A) group. Differences in mean scores were also observed between the(A + Q) and (A + D) groups. The difference was the greatest in the terminology test, fol-

Table 1Means and standard errors of each treatment group on each criterion test

Tests Aa (N = 29) A + Q (N = 29) A + D (N = 28)

Mean Standard error Mean Standard error Mean Standard error

Drawing 16.02 0.48 18.06 0.49 17.07 0.48Identification 18.63 0.33 19.06 0.45 18.31 0.33Terminology 10.91 0.71 12.83 0.72 10.10 0.71Comprehension 9.00 0.55 10.86 0.52 9.51 0.55Total scoreb 54.61 1.59 60.81 1.61 54.99 1.59

a A = Animation lesson; A+Q = animation lesson + question advance organizers; A+D = animationlesson + descriptive advance organizers.

b The maximum score for each test is 20 and 80 for the total test score.

426 H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431

lowed by the comprehension test. There was only a minor difference between these twogroups in the terminology test. The results partially supported the supposition that thequestion type of advance organizer is more effective than the descriptive type of advanceorganizer in facilitating EFL learners’ comprehension of subject matter knowledge when itis presented via animation.

To find out if the observed difference in the mean scores of the three treatment groupswas statistically significant, an inspection of the ANCOVA source data was conducted.The ANCOVA source data indicated that the mean differences among the three treatmentgroups were significant in three of the criterion tests: the drawing test, F(2,82) = 4.414,p = 0.015; the terminology test, F(2, 82) = 3.804, p = 0.026; the comprehension test,F(2,82) = 2.99, p = 0.050; and also in the total test score, F(2,82) = 4.685, p = 0.012. Posthoc comparisons indicated that the (A + Q) treatment outperformed the (A) treatmentgroup in the drawing test. The (A + Q) treatment also outperformed the (A + D) treat-ment in the terminology test. In regard to the total test that measured the students’ overallcomprehension of the instructional material, the (A + Q) group outperformed both the(A + D) and (A) treatment groups. All the results were significant at the 0.05 level. Tosummarize, the results showed that the participants in the (A + Q) condition scored higherthan the (A) condition in the drawing test, comprehension test, and the total test score.The (A + Q) condition also performed better than the (A + D) group in the terminologytest and the total test score. There was no significant difference between (A) and (A + D) inall four criterion tests. The (A + Q) condition is the most effective lesson among the threetreatments in enhancing EFL learners’ comprehension of the content-based lesson.

6. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine if advance organizers are effective cognitiveand pedagogical strategies that can be used to enhance EFL learners’ comprehension of acontent-based lesson when the lesson contained animated visuals and was computer-med-iated. Specifically, the researchers would like to find out if two types of advance organiz-ers, e.g., question and descriptive, are equally effective in facilitating EFL learners’understanding of an animation-based content lesson.

The results of our study suggested that question advance organizers, placed prior to theto-be-encountered instructional material, can be used to facilitate EFL learners’ compre-hension of the content material. This effect was achieved by focusing learners’ attention on

H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431 427

the essential and relevant elements of the new material and bringing about cognitive activ-ities that may enable them to integrate the new information with their prior knowledge(Brown et al., 1983; King, 1992; Palincsar and Brown, 1984). In our study, participantsin the (A + Q) condition scored higher than the animation group in one criterion test,e.g., the drawing test. In addition, when adding all four tests scores together, the(A + Q) group also performed better than the animation group, which further indicatedthat the question advance organizer overall benefited the EFL learners’ comprehensionof the content material.

This finding was consistent with previous studies (Andre, 1987; King, 1992; Nolan,1991; Osman and Hannafin, 1994; Pressley et al., 1990). Osman and Hannafin (1994) sug-gested that advance questioning seems to ‘‘. . .activate prior knowledge, induce higherorder cognitive process, and provide a basis for meta-comprehension assessments. . .’’(p. 10). However, it was interesting to note that in our study, EFL learners in the(A + Q) treatment scored higher than the animation treatment only in the drawing testbut not in the comprehension test, which is regarded as a task that demands the recalland application of more complex information.

In our study, although question advance organizers were not designed to addressdirectly explicit knowledge in the new material, they were used to ‘‘. . .instantiate schemataemphasizing conceptual versus declarative knowledge. . . providing rich supporting con-text’’ for EFL learners’ comprehension of content material (Osman and Hannafin,1994, p. 12). However, the question advance organizer in our study failed to support learn-ers in the comprehension of more difficult content. Some plausible explanations may bededuced here. Previous research has shown that advance organizers provide a cognitiveframework for upcoming information and serve as a bridge between learners’ prior knowl-edge and new information. Advance organizers can also create a cognitive load for learn-ers if they hold them in the working memory, which in turn results in a ‘‘. . .less availableworking memory capacity to comprehend and store in long-term memory’’ the new mate-rial (Kreiner, 1996, p. 354). Our findings also support previous research findings that showthat excess cognitive loads in the working memory are most likely to interfere with thehigher-level comprehension process. Material that contains interacting elements that needto be comprehended simultaneously is more difficult to learn than material that containslow interacting elements or elements that can be understood in isolation (Sweller, 1993,1994; Sweller and Chandler, 1994). A higher-level comprehension question such as, ‘‘Whatis occurring simultaneously in the heart when the aortic valve is completely open’’demands learners’ understanding of facts and simple concepts that were presented in iso-lation. Learners must be able to: (1) identify the parts of the heart; (2) distinguish the con-traction of the four chambers; and (3) understand how the blood circulates through theheart to be able to answer this question. A lower-level question, however, such as ‘‘Whatis (are) the thickest walled chamber(s) of the heart?’’ does not require the integration andunderstanding of isolated concepts.

Kreiner (1996) found out that advance questions were disadvantageous to comprehen-sion because a working memory load induced by advance questions actually affected theintegration process. In his review regarding advance organizers, Kreiner argued thatadvance questions would not have an effect on learners’ reading comprehension unlesslearners can organize the advance questions, integrate them into a rational framework,and bring the framework into long-term memory. Since learners in the CBI environmenthave limited time to effectively process question advance organizers, they may carry them

428 H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431

in the working memory and thus the advance organizer not only failed to provide cogni-tive support but might also impair comprehension.

The researchers have hypothesized that the addition of descriptive advance organizerswould improve students’ achievement in lower-level tests, i.e., drawing and identificationtests, when compared to no intervention at all. This supposition, however, was not sup-ported. The (A + D) group did not score significantly higher in any of the four criteriontests than the animation group. It is plausible that the descriptive advance organizers, con-sisting of single statements of important points prior to the new material, have not drawnenough attention from students and, on the contrary, have shared capacity of workingmemory while students were processing the new information. The descriptive advanceorganizers thus had a negative effective on learning new material rather than promotingthe learning.

The researchers also hypothesized that the (A + Q) group would score significantlyhigher than the (A + D) group and the difference will be the greatest in the more difficulttests, i.e., the terminology and comprehension tests. This supposition was confirmed by thefinding that (A + Q) outperformed the (A + D) group in the terminology test and the totaltest score. The effect may be attributed to the fact that the descriptive advance organizers,consisting of single statements of important concepts prior to the new material, have pro-duced fewer stimuli and required less processing time than the question advance organiz-ers. These attributes enabled learners in the (A + D) group not to carry the information ondescriptive advance organizers over into the long-term memory and retain and retrieve itwhen they took the criterion tests.

Advance questions in this study were designed to enable learners to trigger their priorknowledge, cognitively associate, and elaborate upon the information provided in thequestion advance organizer to the new material. The feedback provided shortly afterthe occurrence of the advance question to either confirm or disconfirm the learners’hypothesis also should have a role in reinforcing the comprehension and retention ofthe new material. The characteristics of question advance organizers described abovemay have put the (A + D) students at a disadvantage because the latter treatment wasmore likely to render learners in a passive condition in which they simply needed to readthe descriptive statements and not be asked to respond actively as the question advanceorganizer condition. Previous research has shown that the quality of learning determineswhether a student will learn what he/she is expected to learn (Buss and Poley, 1976). Thedescriptive advance organizers, compared to the question advance advisers, may renderstudents to the point of being cognitively or motivationally inhibited (Clark et al., 1987;Corno and Snow, 1986; Snow and Lohman, 1984) since students were not required tomindfully generate a response to a given question and were deprived of practicing infor-mation retrieval or elaboration.

7. Conclusions

The research generally supported that EFL learners would learn a content-based lessonmore effectively when they were provided with question advance organizers prior to thelesson. The findings generally support previous research that found the use of advanceorganizers promotes learning in a foreign language context (Chung and Huang, 1998;Hanley et al., 1995; Herron, 1994; Herron et al., 1998) and in other academic settings(Alvermann, 1981; Ausubel, 1960; Barron and Schwartz, 1980; Kang, 1997). However,

H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431 429

our findings contradicted studies that did not find advance organizers as a pedagogicalstrategy that promotes students’ learning from text (Kirkman and Shaw, 1997; Klosterand Winne, 1989).

Previous studies on advance organizers have yielded inconsistent findings due to thenature of advance organizers, the experimental contexts, the participants, and the mate-rial/subject matter used in the study. Therefore our findings are only based on the spe-cific types of advance organizers employed in the study in a content lesson that dealswith physiology knowledge in an EFL college-level context. Several limitations of thestudy were discussed here. First, the learners’ prior knowledge of the subject mattermay have affected their performance in the criterion tests conditionally. Prior knowledgeis one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of achievement (Jonassen andGrabowski, 1993) and achievement varies depending on the quality and amount of priorknowledge that each individual brings to the learning environment. Research generallysupported that a higher prior knowledge would improve learners’ performance in thereading comprehension test. In our study, the learners’ prior knowledge about the sub-ject matter could have been assessed so as to eliminate its effect on their later perfor-mance of the criterion tests.

Secondly, although the overall findings supported the use of advance organizers in facil-itating EFL learners’ comprehension of content-based material, it is not clear why advanceorganizers only benefit specific learning outcomes. For example, there were no significantdifferences among the three conditions in regard to the identification test. It would bedesirable if time spent on advance organizers can be obtained and a correlation can bemade between the time on each treatment and the students’ achievement on each of thecriterion tests. The researchers believed that the time spent on processing the advanceorganizers was valuable and was crucial information to help determine if learners did takeadvantage of the advance organizers and their effect on different types of learning out-comes. These extra findings would be desirable because constructing advance organizersin a computer-based environment is costly. If the integration of advance organizers inCBI only fosters lower-level learning outcomes, the cost-effectiveness is not justifiable fromthe perspective of instructional design. Other types of enhancement strategies, not as costlyas advance organizers, may produce equal pedagogical effects.

Furthermore, previous research has suggested that advance organizers can have aneffect on learners’ retention or recall of text material when they are actively processed(Corkill et al., 1988). In this study, students were not given training on making use ofadvance organizers as a guiding framework for upcoming material. If learners have notbeen trained to take full advantage of the advance organizers, a less satisfactory effectcould be expected. In this study, (A + Q) treatment is more effective than (A) in two ofthe tests and there were no significant differences between (A + D) and (A) in all four cri-terion tests. The authors suspected that the results may differ if students were trained inadvance organizer strategy use prior to receiving the intervention or the differencesbetween two types of intervention and control group would be greater. Further researchis needed to further explore this issue.

In addition, our research examined the effect of advance organizers in an animation-based content lesson in an EFL setting. Future research may look into the effect ofadvance organizers in simple CBI without animated visuals. Also, the line of researchcan be expanded to content-based learning of different subject matters other than theone used in this study.

430 H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431

References

Alvermann, D.E., 1981. The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text. Journal of EducationalResearch 75 (1), 44–48.

Anderson, R.C., Biddle, W.B., 1975. On asking people questions about what they are reading. In: Bower, G.H.(Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Academic Press, New York, pp. 89–132.

Andre, T., 1987. Questions and learning from reading. Questions Exchange 1, 47–86.Ausubel, D.P., 1960. The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material.

Journal of Educational Psychology 51 (5), 267–272.Barron, R.F., Schwartz, R.M., 1980. Teacher acquisition of semantic relationships about reading instruction. In:

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.Bloom, A., 1987. The Closing of the American Mind. Simon and Schuster, New York.Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., Campione, J.C., 1983. Learning, remembering, and understanding.

In: Flavell, J.H., Markman, E.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology. Wiley, New York, pp. 77–166.Buss, A.R., Poley, W., 1976. Individual Differences: Traits and Factors. Gardner, New York.Chung, J.M., Huang, S.C., 1998. The effects of three aural advance organizers for video viewing in a foreign

language classroom. System 26, 553–565.Clark, R.E., Aster, D., Hession, M.A., 1987. When teaching kills learning: types of mathemathantic effects. In:

Paper presented at the 1987 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Conference,Washington, DC.

Corkill, A.J., Glover, J.A., Bruning, R.H., Krug, D., 1988. Advance organizers: retrieval context hypotheses.Journal of Educational Psychology 80 (3), 304–311.

Corno, L., Snow, R.E., 1986. Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners. In: Wittrock, M.C.(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Macmillan, New York, pp. 605–629.

Denner, P.R., Rickards, J.P., 1987. A developmental comparison of the effects of provided and generatedquestions on text recall. Contemporary Educational Psychology 12, 135–146.

Eveland, W.P., Dunwoody, S., 2001. User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitiveload? Communication Research 28 (1), 48–78.

Ginther, A., 2002. Context and content visuals and performance on listening comprehension stimuli. LanguageTesting 19 (2), 133–167.

Glover, J.A., 1989. Improving readers’ estimates of learning from text: the role of inserted questions. ReadingResearch and Instruction 28 (3), 68–75.

Hanley, J., Herron, C., Cole, S.P., 1995. Using video as an advance organizer to a written passage in the ELESclassroom. The Modern Language Journal 79 (1), 57–66.

Herron, C., 1994. An investigation of the effectiveness of using an advance organizer to introduce video in theforeign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 78 (2), 190–198.

Herron, C., York, H., Cole, S.P., Linden, P., 1998. A comparison study of student retention of foreignlanguage video: declarative versus interrogative advance organizer. The Modern Language Journal 82 (2),237–247.

Hirsch, E.D., 1987. Cultural Literacy: What every American needs to Know. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.Jonassen, D.H., Grabowski, B.L., 1993. Handbook of Individual Differences: Learning and Instruction.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.Kang, S.H., 1997. The effects of using an advance organizer on students’ learning in a computer simulation

environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 25 (1), 57–65.King, A., 1992. Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning

from lectures. American Educational Research Journal 29 (2), 303–323.Kirkman, G., Shaw, E.L., 1997. Effects of an oral advanced organizer on immediate and delayed retention. In:

Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of Mid-South Education Research Association (MSERA),Memphis, TN.

Kloster, A.M., Winne, H.P., 1989. The effects of different types of organizers on students’ learning. Journal ofEducational Technology Systems 81 (1), 9–15.

Kreiner, D.S., 1996. Effects of advance questions on reading comprehension. Journal of General Psychology 123(4), 352–364.

Leaver, B.L., Stryker, S.B., 1989. Content-based instruction for foreign language classrooms. Foreign LanguageAnnals 22 (3), 269–275.

Meyer, L.M., 2000. Barriers to meaningful instruction for English learners. Theory into Practice 39 (4), 228–236.

H. Lin, T. Chen / System 34 (2006) 416–431 431

Nolan, T., 1991. Self questioning and prediction: combining meta-cognitive strategies. Journal of Reading 35,132–136.

Osman, M.E., Hannafin, M.J., 1994. Effects of advance questioning and prior knowledge on science learning.Journal of Educational Research 88 (1), 5–13.

Palincsar, A.S., Brown, A.L., 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction 1, 117–175.

Pressley, M., Tenenbaum, R., McDaniel, M., Wood, E., 1990. What happens when university students try toanswer pre-questions that accompany textbook material? Contemporary Educational Psychology 15, 27–35.

Snow, R.E., Lohman, D.F., 1984. Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal ofEducational Psychology 76, 347–376.

Sweller, J., 1993. Some cognitive processes and their consequences for the organization and presentation ofinformation. Australian Journal of Psychology 45, 1–8.

Sweller, J., 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4,295–312.

Sweller, J., Chandler, P., 1994. Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction 12, 185–233.Vandergrift, L., 2004. Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 3–25.Wager, W., Mory, E.H., 1993. The role of questions in learning. In: Dempsey, J.V., Sales, G.C. (Eds.), Interactive

Instruction and Feedback. Educational technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 55–74.