Ausubel's Meaningful Learning Theory: Concepts and Examples

To study Ausubel, separate three questions: how an idea reaches the learner, what it means, and how it links to earlier knowledge. His account helps explain why a clear lecture can lead to understanding, while a practical task can leave only a memorised answer.

This guide follows the theory from its first organiser study to its key terms, competing accounts and critiques. The PDF, slide outline and revision quiz help you review it. Classroom examples follow the theory. For the wider field, see our guide to fundamental learning theories.

Ausubel (1960) tested an organiser before a lesson on unfamiliar science. The group that saw the organiser recalled more than the comparison group. Later reviews found mixed results, so the design and the learner's starting knowledge both need to be checked.

‍

What Is Ausubel's Meaningful Learning Theory?

Two phrases in Ausubel's account need unpacking. Substantive means a link to an idea's sense, so the learner can restate it in new words. Non-arbitrary means the connection follows a relevant relationship. A name memorised at random leaves that relationship unformed (Ausubel, 1963).

Cognitive structure is the learner's existing store of concepts and the links between them. An anchoring idea is a relevant concept within that store which helps the learner make sense of new material. These terms describe how knowledge is organised.

This is different from memorising a string of words. It also differs from the everyday sense of “meaningful”, which means enjoyable, personal or true to life. An activity can feel engaging and still leave the ideas unlinked.

‍

What are the principles of Ausubel's meaningful learning theory?

Ausubel's key principles are that prior knowledge anchors learning, meaning comes from relevant links, broad ideas organise detail, and related ideas need to be compared as understanding grows (Ausubel, 1968).

The principle teachers quote most comes from his 1968 textbook: If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I would say this: The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly. (Ausubel, 1968)

This principle makes the learner's starting point worth careful study. Prior knowledge can be incomplete, hard to bring to mind or confidently wrong. A sketch, example or explanation reveals more of that thinking than a quick show of hands.

‍

Who Was David Ausubel?

David Paul Ausubel (1918 to 2008) was an American psychologist and psychiatrist. He grew up in Brooklyn, New York, studied psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and then trained as a doctor (Seel, 2012). After a doctorate in developmental psychology at Columbia University, he taught at the University of Illinois, the University of Toronto and the City University of New York.

He built his theory in the late 1950s and 1960s. He set out subsumption in a 1962 paper, tested advance organisers in 1960, and brought the whole account together in The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning (Ausubel, 1963) and Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (Ausubel, 1968). In 1973 he left university life to return to psychiatry, but he kept writing for many years after.

His work belongs with cognitivism: it explains learning as a change in how knowledge is organised in the mind, not as a change in outward behaviour. His idea that new material is absorbed into existing ideas sits close to Jean Piaget's account of assimilation. The difference is focus. Piaget described how thinking develops with age, while Ausubel asked how learners take in the subject knowledge that schools teach.

‍

Who is the father of meaningful learning?

David Ausubel is commonly called the father of meaningful learning because he developed the theory of meaningful verbal learning, published as a full account in his 1963 book. Joseph Novak later developed concept mapping as a way to show the links between concepts (Novak, 2002).

‍

Meaningful Learning and Rote Learning

Ausubel saw meaningful and rote learning as two ways material can be learned. The distinction concerns the links the learner makes. Both direct teaching and discovery can lead to either outcome, as the four-types table below shows.

‍

What are the three conditions for meaningful learning?

Meaningful learning needs material whose ideas can fit together, relevant prior knowledge to anchor those ideas, and a learner willing to make the links rather than memorise the wording alone (Ausubel, 1963).

• Potentially meaningful material: the content has a clear structure, with relationships the learner can grasp.
• Relevant prior knowledge: the learner has a suitable anchor idea, or receives help to develop one.
• Willingness to relate ideas: the learner tries to connect the new meaning to that anchor.

A learner can choose to memorise even when the content is well organised. Equally, willingness alone leaves a gap when the needed concepts are missing. These three conditions work together.

A learner can move between these modes. Memorised vocabulary from rote learning may later gain meaning when it joins a wider network of ideas. A fluent explanation can also hide a weak or mistaken anchor. The distinction helps us examine a particular learning outcome.

Mayer (2002) explains the distinction through retention, remembering what was taught, and transfer, using it in a new situation. A learner who recalls a rule and explains a fresh example gives stronger evidence of meaningful learning than recall alone. Read Mayer's account of rote versus meaningful learning.

‍

What are the three types of meaningful learning?

Ausubel distinguished representational learning, where a symbol has meaning, conceptual learning, where shared features define a category, and propositional learning, where concepts combine to express an idea or relationship (Ausubel, 1963).

• Representational learning: learning that the word “triangle” stands for a shape.
• Conceptual learning: learning that triangles share three straight sides, despite differences in size or orientation.
• Propositional learning: understanding the statement “A triangle has three sides” by relating the meanings of its words.

These three types describe the content being learned. The four learning routes below describe how content arrives and how the learner deals with it. Keeping the two lists apart avoids a common revision mix-up.

‍

Meaningful Reception Learning Explained

Meaningful reception learning is Ausubel's name for making sense of content presented in its final form. This may be an explanation, text or worked example. The learner's task is to link its meaning to what they already know. His 1963 book focused on meaningful verbal learning (Ausubel, 1963).

‍

What are Ausubel's four types of learning?

Ausubel's four learning types combine two distinctions: whether content is received or discovered, and whether it is linked meaningfully to prior knowledge or memorised by rote. Either route can produce either outcome.

His key move was to separate two choices that are often blurred. The first is how content reaches the learner: it is presented, or the learner finds it. The second is what the learner does with it: links it to what they know, or stores it as a string. Either route in can end in either kind of learning.

The key distinction is what the learner does with the idea. Comparing, sorting or explaining a fresh case can show how the links formed. Ausubel defended well-planned direct instruction because reception can involve active thought. The comparison with Bruner below develops this point.

‍

Advance Organisers: Definition and Types

Ausubel described an advance organiser as short introductory material, given before the main task, that is more general than the detail to follow. It helps learners relate the coming detail to what they already know. Its defining features are timing, a broad conceptual level and a relevant link to existing knowledge.

‍

What is Ausubel's advance organiser model of teaching?

The advance organiser model presents a broad linking idea before the main content, then develops the detail and checks how it connects to existing knowledge. The organiser provides a conceptual bridge (Ausubel, 1968).

For example, a drainage basin as a system gives river features a shared frame. Revisiting that frame helps the learner explain how each feature fits. The name describes a teaching sequence built around the theory.

‍

Expository organisers

An expository organiser supplies an anchor idea when the new material is unfamiliar. Before teaching river processes, for example, the teacher can describe a general system: water enters a drainage basin, moves through it and leaves it. Source, tributary, confluence and mouth then each have a place in that bigger picture.

‍

Comparative organisers

A comparative organiser helps learners link a new idea to a known one and see how they differ. Start with the shared frame, then make the key difference clear. This gives the new detail a place to fit.

Before teaching negative reinforcement, for example, compare adding and removing a consequence. Then show how reinforcement differs from punishment. The frame makes the link and the boundary visible before the lesson detail.

‍

Advance organiser, knowledge organiser or graphic organiser?

A knowledge organiser usually lists key facts, words and examples. A graphic organiser shows how ideas relate, in a visual form. Either can help learning. But it only does the job of an advance organiser when its timing, level and purpose fit the definition. Concept maps, developed by Novak and colleagues, draw directly on Ausubel's ideas, yet they also work after teaching, to show or repair the links.

A concept map names concepts and joins them with linking words, so each connection expresses a statement. For instance, “Plants need light for photosynthesis” links three concepts. Novak (2002) explains how examining these links can reveal a mistaken idea and support conceptual change.

Many online guides list four types of advance organiser: expository, narrative, skimming and graphic. Only the first is Ausubel's own term, and his other type was the comparative organiser. A story, a skim of the headings or a diagram is a format. Each can do the job of an expository or comparative organiser, or fail to, depending on whether it gives learners a more general idea to hang the detail on.

‍

Subsumption Theory and the Four Learning Processes

Subsumption is the process by which new material is taken into broader ideas the learner already holds. It is often pictured as a filing cabinet, but the key point is that both sides change: the new idea gains meaning, and the existing idea may shift too.

• Derivative subsumption: the new material is one more example of an idea the learner already has. Knowing that a robin is a bird makes a thrush easy to place as another bird.
• Correlative subsumption: the new material extends or changes an existing idea. Learning about proportional voting may change a learner's belief that elections always give one seat to the local winner.
• Superordinate learning: the learner meets a new, broader idea that brings together examples they already know. Evaporation, condensation and rain can be regrouped under the bigger idea of the water cycle.
• Combinatorial learning: the new idea links across several known ideas, without sitting above or below any one of them. A learner may connect feedback loops in biology, climate and economics.

These processes help teachers ask better questions. Instead of asking only “Do they know this?”, ask whether the learner needs an example, a refinement, a broader category or a cross-topic connection. Related explanations of schema and memory belong with working memory and long-term memory, rather than being stretched into claims Ausubel did not test.

‍

What is obliterative subsumption? Why do details fade?

Obliterative subsumption is Ausubel's account of forgetting: a learned detail slowly loses its own identity as it merges with a broader idea, while the main meaning stays in memory (Ausubel, 1962). A learner may remember that a thrush is a bird long after forgetting its markings. For Ausubel, this is one way to explain why details fade. Later schema theory describes related changes in knowledge using different terms.

‍

What is progressive differentiation?

Progressive differentiation means starting with broad, inclusive concepts and gradually adding detail, examples and finer distinctions, so each new idea finds a place within an organised body of knowledge (Ausubel, 1968). A course might introduce a river system before source, tributary and mouth. Each new term then adds detail to the system. The phrase names a way to sequence concepts from broad to specific.

‍

What is integrative reconciliation?

Integrative reconciliation means showing how known ideas fit together and where they differ, so learners can clear up clashes and link concepts taught in separate lessons into a shared frame (Ausubel, 1968). Compare evaporation and boiling: both change a liquid to a gas, but they happen in different ways. Differentiation adds detail. Reconciliation brings ideas back together. A course needs both to keep the links clear.

‍

What Does the Evidence Say?

In Ausubel's 1960 study, learners who first read a short passage of broad, general ideas learned and remembered more from an unfamiliar text. Later reviews did not agree on one verdict. Barnes and Clawson looked at 32 studies and doubted that the results supported broad claims.

Two older meta-analyses found a positive average effect. Luiten et al. (1980) pooled 135 studies and found that organisers helped both learning and retention across ages and subjects. Stone (1983) reached a similar overall result from 112 studies, but in the studies with the largest effects, some conditions were not the ones Ausubel's model predicts. Mayer (1979) argued that organisers help most when learners lack a way to organise the new material, and when the test asks for transfer rather than recall.

Ausubel answered the critics in his 1978 paper In Defense of Advance Organizers. He defended the theory and the criteria used to identify an organiser. This reply helps explain why the debate involves both the study results and how the approach is defined.

Corkill's 1992 review concluded that advance organisers can aid recall, while describing varied findings across experiments. This supports a measured reading: some organisers help in some settings. The effect of an organiser and the value of the whole theory remain separate questions.

A recent open review by Bryce and Blown finds that Ausubel's stress on prior knowledge is still influential. It also notes mixed results, the difficulty of pinning down what counts as an advance organiser, and newer accounts in which memories can change. So the classroom verdict is conditional. A well-designed organiser can help, but its quality and timing, the learners' knowledge, the content and the teaching that follows all matter.

Research on prior knowledge adds a warning. In one study, readers who recalled their own ideas before a text that contradicted them let those ideas override what they read (Alvermann et al., 1985). A review of 54 studies found that activating prior knowledge helped or not depending on how much learners knew, how accurate it was and how specific it was (Hattan et al., 2024). A large meta-analysis found that prior knowledge predicted where learners ended up far better than how much they gained (Simonsmeier et al., 2022).

A study of organisers is most useful when it specifies the conceptual bridge, the prior knowledge it assumes and the outcome measured. Recall, transfer and changes to an explanation answer different questions. Looking at those details makes the conflicting findings easier to interpret.

‍

Ausubel, Bruner and Cognitive Load

Bruner is often set against Ausubel because Bruner argued for learning by discovery. For novices meeting an established body of knowledge, Ausubel saw well-organised explanation as the normal route, with learners doing the work of linking it to what they know. For Bruner's wider account, including modes of representation and the spiral curriculum, see the guide to Bruner's theories.

Reception and discovery describe how content reaches the learner. Meaningful and rote describe how the learner handles it. That distinction allows both explanation and exploration. Scaffolding supports a learner through a task; an advance organiser provides an inclusive conceptual bridge before the main material.

Ausubel's account also overlaps with later cognitive load theory: well-organised prior knowledge changes what a learner can take in at once. The two are not the same, though. Ausubel described how new ideas are absorbed into old ones. Cognitive load theory models the limits of working memory and how the design of teaching adds to or eases that load.

‍

What is the difference between Ausubel and Piaget?

Ausubel focuses on learning new subject knowledge through concepts a learner already holds. Piaget focuses on how thinking develops as learners fit experiences into schemas or change those schemas. The theories ask different questions.

For Piaget, assimilation means fitting an experience into a known schema, or pattern of thought. Accommodation means changing the schema to deal with a new experience. Ausubel asks how a new idea gains meaning through its links to known concepts (Ausubel, 1963; Bryce and Blown, 2024).

This table compares the main focus of each theory. Both give existing knowledge an active role. Ausubel also allows a known idea to change, as correlative subsumption shows. The two theories use related concepts to answer different questions.

‍

Limitations and Common Misunderstandings

Ausubel's theory is strongest as an account of how verbal and conceptual knowledge can link with prior ideas. It gives less help with motivation, social learning and physical skill. Prior knowledge may also be wrong, while a poor organiser can add more words without building a useful bridge.

• Prior knowledge is not automatically productive. It may be patchy, tied to one context or simply wrong. Calling it up without checking it can strengthen the wrong idea.
• An organiser does not replace teaching. Learners still need explanation, modelling, practice, feedback and opportunities to retrieve and apply knowledge.
• Meaningful is not the same as personally relevant. Ausubel's sense of meaning is about how ideas link in the mind, not how much a topic matters to the learner.
• Reception is not necessarily passive. The learner still has to do the work of linking new ideas to old ones.
• Conceptual knowledge is the centre of gravity. The theory says less about acquiring complex motor routines, social participation or motivation. For learning by watching others, social learning theory is the better lens.

Use Ausubel as one planning lens. Pair diagnosis with retrieval practice to establish what remains accessible, and use examples, non-examples and explanation to test whether the relationship is understood. To see how Ausubel fits beside the other models, read our overview of the main theories of learning.

‍

Ausubel Meaningful Learning Theory PDF, Slides and Quiz

Use the existing one-page PDF to review the core account. The slide outline offers a short presentation plan. The self-check quiz tests the distinctions that are easiest to mix up when revising Ausubel.

‍

‍

Ausubel meaningful learning theory PPT: a slide outline

Use six slides to explain the theory: start with prior knowledge, show the learning types and organisers, then compare the learning processes and the evidence. Give each slide one clear example.

1. Start with what is known: show how one old idea gives a new idea meaning.
2. Check the three conditions: clear material, a relevant anchor and the will to make links.
3. Show the four routes: cross reception or discovery with meaningful or rote learning.
4. Compare the two organisers: one supplies an anchor; the other draws on a related idea.
5. Show how an idea fits: use the bird example to contrast a new case with a change to a known concept.
6. Read the evidence: check both what learners recall and how they use it in a fresh case.

‍

Revision quiz: can you distinguish Ausubel's key ideas?

Answer each question before opening its explanation. Use the answers to check the reasoning behind your choice. Focus on the link being made, rather than recalling a label on its own.

‍

A Worked Classroom Example

Imagine a Year 8 science class beginning oxidation and reduction. Some learners associate oxidation only with rust; others think oxygen must always be present. The teacher wants an organiser that supports the new electron-transfer account without treating prior ideas as empty containers.

1. Elicit the current anchors. Ask learners to explain rusting, burning and what they think the word reduction means. Collect explanations, not just correct answers.
2. Select the inclusive relationship. Introduce a simple paired frame: oxidation is loss of electrons and reduction is gain of electrons. Present the pair as one transfer process.
3. Contrast old and new meanings. Show why oxygen gain describes some cases but not the full set. Compare a case with oxygen and a case without it.
4. Teach the detailed examples. Model electron changes and then move to supported practice. The organiser is the bridge, not the whole lesson.
5. Test integration. Give a novel reaction and ask learners to justify which substance is oxidised and which is reduced. Recheck the original rust explanation.

‍

A Year 5 Example: Friction

Many Year 5 learners believe a rolling ball stops because it runs out of push. That idea is the anchor they bring, and the new idea has to change it. This is correlative subsumption, so the teacher uses a comparative organiser: "You know a ball rolls further on the hall floor than on the field. Today we find out why. A force called friction acts where two surfaces touch, and it works against movement."

Read the photograph description

An adult teacher holds one ball beside separate wood, carpet and sand surfaces during preparation for a friction comparison. The ball has not been released. No distance, timer, measurement or experiment result is claimed.

Learners then roll the same ball on carpet, wood and a tray of sand and rank the distances. The teacher names the contrast directly: the ball did not run out of anything, a force slowed it. To check the link, the teacher asks, "A skateboard slows down on a smooth path. Why?" An answer that names friction between the wheels and the ground shows the new idea has replaced the old one. "It ran out of speed" shows it has not, yet.

The same structure works in other subjects. In history, a comparative organiser can separate revolution, reform and rebellion before any case studies. In English, a general account of allegory can anchor the details of a new text. In maths, examples and non-examples can show whether learners grasp equivalence before they start moving symbols around.

How does this look in real classrooms? On social media, few teachers use Ausubel's terms, but many describe the step his theory starts from: finding out what learners already know before new teaching. The table below sets three of their routines beside the research that bears on each. Where a post says MWB, it means a mini whiteboard.

Not every teacher agrees on how to open a lesson. The posts below show two sides of one problem: a familiar name or a simple comparison can feel like understanding while the meaning is still missing, and a busy starter can check recall without checking the link.

‍

A Five-Step Planning Check

A useful lesson check should stay short. It should help the teacher choose the right bridge, teach the new detail and see whether the link made sense. Use these five questions before the lesson and return to them when you review the work.

1. What must learners already know? Name the idea, not just the last topic. If the new lesson is about fractions, the anchor may be equal parts rather than a list of fraction terms.
2. How will I find out? Ask for a sketch, example, sort or short explanation. A yes or no question gives weak evidence. Look for the link the learner makes and the words they use.
3. What is the broad idea? Write one clear statement that can hold the lesson detail. If it simply lists what comes next, it is a preview, not an advance organiser.
4. Which contrast will help? Pick one likely mix-up. Put an example beside a non-example, or show how the old idea and the new idea differ.
5. How will learners show the link? Ask them to explain, classify or use the idea in a new case. Correct recall matters, but it does not show the whole link on its own.

This check can fit on one planning note. It does not add a new lesson stage. It helps the teacher make the first explanation, model and task connect with what the class is ready to learn.

The planner below turns the five questions into a card you can print. Name the new idea and the anchor, choose how they connect, and it suggests the organiser type, a one-line frame, a contrast and a check.

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

These answers separate Ausubel's key terms from common classroom shortcuts. They cover the main idea, the job of an advance organiser, how it differs from a graphic organiser, who Ausubel was, two kinds of subsumption, the role of discovery and the limits of the evidence.

‍

What is the main idea of Ausubel's theory?

New knowledge is learned meaningfully when learners link it, by its sense, to relevant ideas they already hold. So what a learner already knows is the starting point for teaching.

‍

What is an advance organiser?

A brief opening idea, pitched at a more general level than the lesson itself, that bridges what learners already know and the new detail. It works as a frame, not a summary.

‍

What is the difference between an advance organiser and a graphic organiser?

“Graphic” describes a visual format. “Advance organiser” describes a teaching job, with a set timing and level. A graphic can act as an advance organiser, but many graphic organisers do not.

‍

Who was David Ausubel?

An American psychologist and psychiatrist (1918 to 2008) who spent most of his academic career on how school learners acquire and keep subject knowledge. He is best known for advance organisers and subsumption.

‍

What is the difference between derivative and correlative subsumption?

In derivative subsumption the new material is one more case of a concept the learner already has, so the concept itself stays the same. In correlative subsumption the new material extends or qualifies the concept, so the learner's existing idea has to change.

‍

What is superordinate learning?

Learning a new, more general concept that brings together examples the learner already knows, such as learning "mammal" after meeting dogs, whales and bats.

‍

Did Ausubel reject discovery learning?

No. He rejected the claim that learners must discover ideas for themselves to learn them meaningfully, and he defended well-planned explanation. That does not make every explanation meaningful, or every guided enquiry a mistake.

‍

Do advance organisers always improve learning?

No. Research findings are mixed. Effects depend on whether the organiser supplies a relevant conceptual bridge, what learners already know, the content, the comparison condition and the teaching that follows.

‍

Further Reading

‍

Which Ausubel books should I read?

Start with Ausubel's 1963 book for the original theory, then his 1968 textbook for the wider account of education and teaching in schools. Read Bryce and Blown's later review to examine the theory's claims and limits.

• Ausubel (1963), The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. Read this for the theory in its original form. It explains how new ideas gain meaning and how they are kept or forgotten.
• Ausubel (1968), Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Read this for the wider account of teaching and learning. It places the theory beside other questions about education.
• Bryce and Blown (2024), Ausubel's meaningful learning re-visited. This open-access journal paper brings the debate up to date. It examines memory, prior knowledge and the limits of the theory. Read the review.

• The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material
  Ausubel (1960).
• Twenty years of research on advance organizers: Assimilation theory is still the best predictor of results
  Mayer (1979).
• Do Advance Organizers Facilitate Learning? Recommendations for Further Research Based on an Analysis of 32 Studies
  Barnes and Clawson (1975).
• Ausubel's meaningful learning re-visited
  Bryce and Blown (2024).
• Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners
  Novak (2002).

‍

References

Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 420-436. https://doi.org/10.2307/747852

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046669

Ausubel, D. P. (1962). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning and retention. The Journal of General Psychology, 66(2), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1962.9711837

Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. Grune & Stratton.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Barnes, B. R., & Clawson, E. U. (1975). Do advance organizers facilitate learning? Review of Educational Research, 45(4), 637-659. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045004637

Bryce, T. G. K., & Blown, E. J. (2024). Ausubel's meaningful learning re-visited. Current Psychology, 43(5), 4579-4598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04440-4

Hattan, C., Alexander, P. A., & Lupo, S. M. (2024). Leveraging what students know to make sense of texts: What the research says about prior knowledge activation. Review of Educational Research, 94(1), 73-111. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221148478

Luiten, J., Ames, W., & Ackerson, G. (1980). A meta-analysis of the effects of advance organizers on learning and retention. American Educational Research Journal, 17(2), 211-218. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312017002211

Mayer, R. E. (1979). Twenty years of research on advance organizers. Instructional Science, 8, 133-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117008

Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change. Science Education, 86(4), 548-571. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10032

Seel, N. M. (2012). Ausubel, David P. (1918-2008). In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 387-388). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1149

Simonsmeier, B. A., Flaig, M., Deiglmayr, A., Schalk, L., & Schneider, M. (2022). Domain-specific prior knowledge and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 57(1), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700

Stone, C. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer studies. The Journal of Experimental Education, 51(4), 194-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1983.11011862

Ausubel, D. P. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational Research, 48(2), 251-257. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543048002251

Corkill, A. J. (1992). Advance organizers: Facilitators of recall. Educational Psychology Review, 4(1), 33-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01322394

Healy, V. C. (1989). The effects of advance organizer and prerequisite knowledge passages on the learning and retention of science concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(7), 627-642. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260707

Mayer, R. E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning? Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 371-383. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002371

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4

Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413-448. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003413