{:-
.mi‘fli‘w
.1: «r

xii-33‘2““

w
4‘.....-‘ ~

. .. r~
. “0.
a

VJ!

d
“fld‘f ’
a'x‘u‘fl
J

3:"? 4

u m.
"21”"

r;'
1‘:

“Art“ A «v
,rn‘ "75233?
M I
“x.
and

w,“- 3-3:"-
‘ w-
Jan. '
W3.“
5...."
u... ......
A grown“.

I ‘

I

, #5‘3

:92 :34?
2.}

- u
"a“:

352%.;

,.4e«
“.4...

.m -
.. . 4a—4v-D
" itinnwn

 

“4...,“-

M. A”...
nuva‘ ""
w:

y';

' ' :J
. .
31:93“ I
‘7

1‘-
any.

‘ 1
'13
i. J.

.z.
L’-
a

..'...-n
H .M
A”...
1”?“
'3'.
a...
...

[-14
0..”

v
V

“:‘fi
‘ - "t3:

'...“-~

A...
,.=r
....

.
....¢.
:: an;

A?”
'V

l

. " x ‘

V 4 .O‘

1%.,‘3'3-hh ‘
354“"; I

. I

‘ i» P ‘s

..

k k‘i- s

‘1‘ ml“: .519}, Elfin?
- ‘ “7433‘?"
3r§gu-l' ‘jlé‘tx" \ i‘;
6:4: . - ' . 9
t} M

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Effects of Advance Organizers and Different Methods
of Symbolic Coding on Training Outcomes

presented by

Matthew R. Smith

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. Psychology

 

degree in

 

@421

f;
/r ,,
L/

Major professor

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLAcE DI RETURN ”Xbmmwmfiunywrm

TOAVOIDFINESrmnonorbdonddodm.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU ION! mm Action/EM Opponunly lmlulon

1

THE EFFECTS OF ADVANCE ORGANIZERS AND DIFFERENT
METHODS OF SYMBOLIC CODING ON TRAINING OUTCOMES

By

Matthew Ross Smith

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology
1994

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF ADVANCE ORGANIZERS AND DIFFERENT
METHODS OF SYMBOLIC CODING ON TRAINING OUTCOMES

BY

Matthew Ross Smith

Using an information processing perspective, this
research was designed to investigate the linkage between
previous knowledge and new learning on training outcomes by
examining three variables: advance organizers, symbolic
coding, and cognitive ability. The research was broken down
into two studies. In the first study, the effects of
advance organizers and cognitive ability were examined in
the absence of symbolic coding. The results indicated that
cognitive ability had a positive effect on retention and
generalizability and a negative effect on self—efficacy. In
the second study, using a 2 (Symbolic Coding) X 2 (Pre-
training Information) design, analyses also revealed a
positive effect of ability on retention and
generalizability. In addition, symbolic coding had an
effect on retention through a mediating variable, learning.

Implications for training and future research are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

So many people have given me the support and assistance
needed to make this thesis a reality. I hope I do them
justice in the following short paragraphs.

I would like to thank the faculty members at Michigan
State for guiding my development, but in particular, the
members of my thesis committee: Kevin Ford, Steve Kozlowski,
and Neal Schmitt. Kevin Ford, my committee chair, provided
me with the direction and support I needed throughout this
process and guided me on how to ask the critical questions
in designing research. Steve Kozlowski rendered invaluable
assistance by constantly guiding me to think about
theoretical implications and frameworks. Neal Schmitt was
always available to furnish thoughtful insights on
quantitative aspects and research manipulations. Without
their guidance, I would still be writing a proposal, instead
of an acknowledgements section.

I would also like to thank my fellow graduate students
at Michigan State. In particular, I would like to thank Rob
Anderson for providing feedback and comraderie both
academically and personally and for making graduate school a
little easier to bear these last three years. Without

making this an awards speech, I also want to thank Jose,

iii

Ron, Jen, Dennis, Whit, Stan, and El for providing insights,
commentary, and support these last couple of years. In
addition, I would also like to thank Andrea August, Michelle
Hruska, and Dave Ziegler for their assistance during the
data collection for this thesis.

I also want to thank God for giving me the skills and
abilities needed to make this thesis possible. I want to
thank my family, especially my parents, for teaching me the
value of striving to do my best, and providing me with the
support I needed, not only through graduate school, but
throughout my life. Last, but certainly not least, I want
to thank my wife Kathy for not only providing me with love
and support every step of the way, but for constantly
reminding me what was really important in life. This

accomplishment is as much hers as it is mine.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES

INTRODUCTION
Advance Organizers .
Conceptual History
Empirical Work .
Construction of Advance Organizers
Symbolic Coding
Cognitive Ability .
Effects on the Processing of New Information
Gathering and Storing
Retrieval
Summary
Research Study
Previous Research
Retention .
Generalizability.
Self— -Efficacy
Quality of Learning Points.

METHOD . .
Sample
Design .
Study I

Study II .
Independent Variables

Pre- —Training Information/Advance Organizer

Symbolic Coding
Cognitive Ability
Dependent Variables
Learning .
Reproduction
Retention .
Generalizability
Self— -Efficacy
Quality
Procedure .
Pre- -Training Information Conditions
Videotaped Models . . .
Symbolic Coding Conditions
Tests for Learning and Reproduction

vii

Post-Training Measures
Pilot Test

RESULTS .

Reliability of Measurement

Study I . .
Retention
Generalizability

Self— -Efficacy

Study II .
Retention
Generalizability.
Self— -Efficacy
Quality

DISCUSSION
Summary and Implications of Major Findings
Cognitive Ability
Pre- -Training Information
Symbolic Coding
Study Limitations
Pre- -Training Information
Training Material . .
Dependent Variable Measures
Directions for Future Research

APPENDIX A: Advance Organizer
APPENDIX B: Background Information Paragraph

APPENDIX C: Wonderlic Personnel Test — Cognitive

Ability Scale

APPENDIX D: Learning and Retention Scale
APPENDIX E: Reproduction Scale

APPENDIX F: Generalizability Scale

APPENDIX G: Self-Efficacy Scale

APPENDIX H: Quality of Learning Points Scale
APPENDIX I: Positive Model Script

APPENDIX J: Negative Model Script

APPENDIX K: Learning Points

APPENDIX L: Pilot Testing Results

LIST OF REFERENCES

vi

103
106
110
114
119
120
122
125
127
128
129

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

10:
ll:

12:

LIST OF TABLES

Interrater Correlation Matrix for Reproduction
Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Interrater Correlation Matrix for

Generalizability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Interrater Correlation Matrix for Quality . . . 64
Corrected Item-Total Correlations for Learning
Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables
for Study I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Intercorrelations Among Study Variables:

Study I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Regression Analysis Results on Retention Measure:
Study I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Regression Analysis Results on Generalizability:
Study I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Regression Analysis Results on Self-Efficacy:
Study I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Means and Standard Deviations for Study II . . 75
Adjusted Means for Dependent Variables in

Study II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Intercorrelations Among Study Variables:

Study II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

vii

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

l3:

14:

15:

l6:

l7:

Regression Analysis Results on Retention:

Study II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Regression Analysis Results of Test of Mediation
of Learning on Retention: Study II . . . . . . 81
Regression Analysis Results on Generalizability:
Study II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Regression Analysis Results on Self-Efficacy:
Study II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Regression Analysis Results on Quality:

Study II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

viii

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

LIST OF FIGURES

Hypothesized Effects of Pre—Training

Information and Symbolic Coding on Retention . 38
Hypothesized Effects of Pre-Training

Information and Symbolic Coding on
Generalizability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Hypothesized Effects of Pre-Training

Information and Symbolic Coding on

Self-Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

ix

I NTRODUC TI ON

Billions of dollars are being spent in today’s
workplace with the hopes of imparting new knowledge on the
workforce (Michilak, 1981). However, much of the knowledge
and skills learned in training are either not retained or
are difficult to generalize from the training situation to
the actual work. Such training is not only a waste of time
for the trainees, but a financial loss for the organization
sponsoring the training.

Pre-training factors such as a trainee's readiness or a
trainee's motivation in the training have a substantial
influence on the effectiveness of various training
approaches. Another pre-training factor is the trainee's
previous knowledge base and the structure of that knowledge.
Training programs often do not take into account the
trainee’s knowledge background in the construction of
various programs. One example is the training of
assertiveness skills to employees. Training may provide the
knowledge of how to be assertive, and even demonstrate the
appropriate steps to take in a situation. Yet, the trainee
may have learned to be assertive in a particular situation
exemplified in training, and may be unable to transfer this

newfound skill to a different situation that arises on their

2

own individual job. If the training had been structured
around the background knowledge already in the trainee's
cognitive framework, this new information might not only be
encoded more accurately and retained longer, but a general
structure could be provided that was not situation-specific.

Taking an information processing view, this study
examines the linkage between previous knowledge and new
learning in a behavior modeling context. The process of
acquiring new information involves effectively gathering,
storing, and retrieving new material. The proficiency of
this information processing can have an effect on the
outcomes of training programs. This research study examines
three issues that can affect the gathering, storing, and
retrieval of new information which, in turn, can affect such
training outcomes as the retention and generalizability of
new training material, a trainee’s self-efficacy and the
quality of generated learning points. First, researchers
have suggested that the use of advance organizers,
introductory materials constructed at a high level of
generality and inclusiveness to serve an assimilative role
for new learning material, could be beneficial in their
application to training (Goldstein, 1991; Howell & Cooke,
1989). Not only should the trainee’s background knowledge
be taken into account, but advance organizers provide a
method by which this background knowledge can be used to
increase the learning, retention, and generalizability of

training material. What these mechanisms are and how they

3
can be applied to aid in the efficient processing of
information, however, has never been fully understood in the
context of training in work organizations. Second, a key
component of behavior modeling training is the use of
learning points to serve as a summary of the key behaviors
required to perform the task (Decker & Nathan, 1985). The
second factor in this study is the symbolic coding of these
learning points through different methods. In particular,
providing trainees with learning points and having trainees’
generate their own are two symbolic coding methods that are
examined in this study. Third, cognitive ability has been
shown to be a useful predictor of job performance (Dunnette,
1976; Hunter, 1986) and skill acquisition (Ackerman &
Humphreys, 1990). Individuals with higher levels of
cognitive ability are viewed as being more efficient
processors of information in gathering, storing, and
retrieving new information in a more organized fashion.
Cognitive ability's effect on linking previous knowledge to
training material is also explored in this study.

In summary, all three variables have been suggested to
aid in not only the gathering and storing of new
information, but in the retrieval of this information as
well. This study examines how they jointly affect the
information processing of new material in the context of the
training outcome measures of retention, generalizability,

self-efficacy, and quality of learning points generated.

Advance Organizers
Conceptual histogy. Advance organizers were derived

from the work of Ausubel (1963, 1968) in relation to new
meaningful learning, or the learning of material that
specifies an incorporation of new information into the
individual's cognitive structure. Ausubel asserted that the
individual's existing cognitive structure, both the content
of the knowledge and its organizational properties, is the
most important factor influencing meaningful learning and
retention. Meaningful material is learned in relation to
the individual's previous learned background of concepts,
principles, and information. The more clear, stable,
organized, and accurate the individual's background, the
more likely it will be that new information will be learned
and retained (Ausubel, 1968).

In meaningful learning, it is impossible to think of
new learning outside the realm of one's existing cognitive
structure because this new information must somehow be
incorporated into the individual's existing cognitive
structure. Prior experience is conceptualized by Ausubel
(1968) as a cumulatively acquired, hierarchically organized,
established body of knowledge which can be related either
positively or negatively to the new learning task. Ausubel
defines this transfer situation as existing whenever an
individual’s cognitive structure influences new cognitive
functioning, irrespective of whether it is in regard to

initial learning or problem solving (Ausubel, 1968).

5

Several factors influence the learning and retention of
new meaningful information (Ausubel, 1968). The first
factor is the availability in the cognitive structure of
relevant anchoring ideas at a level of abstraction or
inclusiveness appropriate to provide optimal reliability and
anchorage for the to-be-learned material. The second factor
is the extent to which the new information is discriminable
from the established structures into which it is assimilated
or that might be assimilated into the new information.
Ausubel (1968) asserts that discriminable categorical
information (information of a category that “stands out“
from other information) of more inclusive established
meanings are more likely to be retained over the long-term.
The third and final factor that affects the learning and
retention of meaningful material is the stability and
clarity of the anchoring ideas. If the anchoring ideas are
ambiguous and unstable, they not only relate poorly to the
new material, but they also cannot be easily discriminated
from them. For example, an unstable anchoring idea will
change in its relationship to the to-be-learned material
depending on factors like the situation.

The concept of anchoring ideas and the factors
affecting the learning and retention of meaningful material
led to the concept and application of advance organizers.
Advance organizers are the principal strategy espoused by
Ausubel (1968) to enhance the learning and retention of new

meaningful material. These advance organizers are

6
introductory materials constructed at a high level of
generality and inclusiveness whose relevance to the learning
task is made explicit, to serve an assimilative role, rather
than relying on the spontaneous availability or use of
appropriate anchoring ideas in cognitive structure (Ausubel,
1968). These organizers are not to be confused with
summaries and overviews which present information at the
same level of abstraction, generality, and inclusiveness as
the learning material itself by emphasizing the important
points of the material and omitting the less important
information. Advance organizers, on the other hand, serve
the function of bridging the gap between what the individual
already knows and what he/she needs to know before he/she
can successfully learn the task at hand.

The rationale for using advance organizers is based
primarily on the importance of using relevant and
appropriately established ideas already in an individual's
cognitive structure to make new learning material
potentially meaningful and give the material stable and
clear anchorage (Ausubel, 1968). The use of advance
organizers is also based on the advantages of using the more
general and inclusive ideas or subsumers for the new
information. In addition, advance organizers identify the
relevant content in the individual's cognitive structure and
their own relevance for the new learning material.

Advance organizers have two functions (Ausubel, 1968):

(1) to provide a structure for the learning and retention of

7
more detailed and differentiated material that follows in
the learning material, and (2) to increase the
discriminability between the learning material and similar
or conflicting ideas already in the individual’s cognitive
structure. The organizers not only give the learner a
general structure of the more detailed information in
advance of his/her actual confrontation with it, but also
provide organizing elements that are inclusive of and take
into account the particular content contained in the
material.

Ausubel (1968) makes note of two kinds of advance
organizers. The first kind of advance organizer is an
expository organizer that is used with material that is
unfamiliar to the learner. These subsumers furnish
ideational anchorage in terms that are already familiar to
the learner. In learning unfamiliar material, this
organizer might include whatever established and relevant
knowledge presumably exists in the individual’s cognitive
structure that would make the learning material more easily
comprehended. A second kind of advance organizer is the
comparative organizer that is used in the case of relatively
familiar learning material. Its function is to integrate
new ideas with similar concepts in cognitive structure, as
well as to increase the discriminability between new and
existing ideas which are different but can be easily
confused. This organizer might point out ways in which the

two concepts are sindlar and different. The use of either

8
of these organizers makes the relevance of the anchoring
ideas to the learning material more explicit and is itself
more related to the differentiated content of the material
to be learned.

Empirical work. Substantial amounts of research on the
effectiveness of advance organizers can be found in the
educational literature. While this research contains
conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of advance
organizers, some basic tenants regarding the effective use
of advance organizers can be stated. This section
highlights some of those common themes in relation to the
use of advance organizers.

The research on advance organizers begins with
Ausubel’s series of studies designed to examine the effects
of advance organizers on learning from text (Ausubel, 1960;
Ausubel & Fitzgerald, 1961, 1962; Ausubel & Youssef, 1963).
In a typical study, (i.e., Ausubel & Youssef, 1963),
subjects would read either a comparative advance organizer
displaying the differences between Buddhism and Christianity
or a historical introduction prior to reading a passage on
Buddhismi Retention for the passage was higher for the
advance organizer group based on the assumption that the
advance organizer helped the subjects learn Buddhism using
existing concepts in their own cognitive structures.

Recent work has tested the parameters of Ausubel's
subsumption theory, providing a slight modification on his

work. This work has examined the validity of fundamentally

9
different views of how an advance organizer influences
learning (Derry, 1984). On one hand, the assimilation
encoding hypothesis proposes that an advance organizer will
facilitate the process by which material is subsumed by more
inclusive anchoring ideas. In this subsumption, the
material to be learned and the anchoring knowledge are
combined so that the details of the discourse are obscured
and the higher order ideas that are related to the schema
are enhanced (Mayer 1975a). On the other hand, Ausubel
proposed the schema + correction hypothesis which argues
that advance organizers do not obliterate the relevant
factual detail in the “to be learned“ material. Instead,
advance organizers increase the discriminability between the
text information and the anchoring ideas.

Derry (1984) tested the differences between Mayer’s
assimilation encoding view, Ausubel's schema + correction
view, and a third view which combines the two views
mentioned above entitled assimilation + correction. The
assimilation encoding view describes the integrating
function of the organizer on incoming information and the
schema + correction view highlights the role played by the
organizer in enhancing the discriminability of new material
from the anchoring ideas of the subsumer. The assimilation
+ correction view asserts that both occur simultaneously as
part of the same learning mechanism (Derry, 1984). This
system suggests the operation of a dual-encoding system

whereby schema-consistent ideas are assimilated into prior

10

active knowledge, and novel and inconsistent details are
added to memory as discrete schema corrections. Schema-
consistent information is thought to lose detailed
specificity at encoding and will be difficult to be
retrieved at a later date, whereas modifying details should
be enhanced (Derry, 1984). The results of Derry’s (1984)
research favored the assimilation + correction view. The
prevalent effect was assimilatory loss of detail associated
with information consistent with the schema (Derry, 1984).

Two meta-analyses have examined the effects of advance
organizers on the learning and retention of information
(Luiten, Ames, & Ackerson, 1980; Stone, 1983). These meta-
analyses have found small, but facilitative effects for
advance organizers in measuring learning and retention. In
his review of the advance organizer research, Mayer (1979b)
developed four important parameters for the use of advance
organizers in regards to the structure of the learning
material, the characteristics of the subjects, and the
outcomes of using advance organizers. These parameters can
help to explain the small, facilitative effects found in the
research. First, advance organizers have a stronger effect
for poorly organized or structured material than for well
organized material. This finding has been fairly well
documented in the advance organizer research (Daniels &
Whitman, 1981; Mayer, 1978; Schumacher, Liebert, & Pass,
1975). If the material is not well organized, the advance

organizer provides the learner with a structure to encode

11
the new material. Second, advance organizers should have a
stronger positive effect for learners lacking prerequisite
knowledge. While supported by Ausubel’s work (Ausubel &
Fitzgerald, 1961, 1962; Ausubel & Youssef, 1963),
subsumption theory predicts that advance organizers should
have a stronger effect for learners who lack the
prerequisite knowledge. Those who already possess the
prerequisite knowledge have their own structure in regards
to the new material. Third, advance organizers should have
an especially strong effect on measures of transfer rather
than retention. Advance organizers provide the individual
with a general structure that is applicable to more than one
situation. For example, if the goal of training is to
instruct individuals on a three—step process to turn on a
machine, advance organizers would not be necessary for
retention. However, if you were instructing individuals on
a skill that would need to be applied to a variety of
different situations, an advance organizer could aid in the
generalizability by providing a general structure for the
learner.

While most of the research on advance organizers has
been in the area of learning and retention, issues of far
transfer and generalizability need to be addressed.
Research by Mayer (Mayer, 1975a, 1975b, 1976) found that
subjects in an advance organizer (A0) condition performed
better on far transfer items and control subjects performed

better on near transfer items with far transfer items being

12
those that require the adaptation of knowledge to new
situation and near transfer items being those that require
rote memorization of information. In another study, Mayer
and Bromage (1980) found that AC subjects recalled different
types of information than control subjects and subjects who
received the organizer after the learning material (P0).
The A0 subjects tended to recall more idea units concerning
conceptual aspects, more intrusions concerning the model,
and more novel interpretations concerning the material which
would be more suited for situations requiring the
generalizability of information. The control group and PO
group recalled more technical and specific idea units which
would be more suited for situations that require rote
memorization.

Fourth, advance organizers should have a stronger
effect for learners lacking prerequisite cognitive abilities
(Mayer, 1979b). High ability subjects are typically those
experienced learners who more readily use their own existing
knowledge as an assimilative set during learning, even
without the assistance of an advance organizer. Low ability
learners do not necessarily use their existing knowledge as
readily as higher ability learners; therefore, advance
organizers should provide a larger benefit for those with
lower abilities.

Of these parameters, a major point of conflict concerns
the issue about the differences in ability levels. In

regards to the four parameters mentioned above, the results

13
of the meta-analyses (Luiten, Ames, &Ackerson, 1980; Stone,
1983) tend to conflict with the contention that low-ability
subjects benefit the most from the use of advance
organizers. Both meta—analyses not only refute this
statement by saying that both high-ability and low-ability
subjects benefit from advance organizers, but in one meta-
analysis (Luiten, Ames, & Ackerson, 1980) the authors argue
that high-ability subjects might benefit more from the use
of advance organizers. While this notion conflicts with
Ausubel’s subsumption theory, a possible limitation of the
meta-analyses is that not all of the studies measured
ability in the same way. In addition, not all advance
organizers are well constructed in this research which could
also lead to conflicting results. This fact will be
expanded upon in the next section. In studies that are well
constructed (i.e., Mayer, 1975a), lower ability subjects
tended to benefit more from the use of advance organizers
than high ability subjects.

Construction of advance organizers. A common criticism
of advance organizers is the operational construction of an
advance organizer in relationship to subsumption theory
proposed by Ausubel (1968). Many critics argue that there
is no clear, concise, or standard way to construct advance
organizers, and most researchers tend to construct the
organizers based on the notions and writings of Ausubel
(Barnes & Clawson, 1975; Clark & Bean, 1982; McEneany,

1990). This criticism questions not only the nature of the

14
studies conducted, but the results obtained from the meta-
analyses listed above (Luiten, Ames, & Ackerson, 1980;
Stone, 1983), as well as other reviews that conclude advance
organizers have a small facilitative effect on learning and
retention. If they are poorly constructed in a study (i.e.,
uses titles and main points instead of subsumers), it is no
surprise that they have small facilitative effects, if any
at all, because they violate Ausubel's principles for
constructing an advance organizer (Mayer, 1979b). Solutions
to the problem of poorly constructed advance organizers can
be found in a variety of ways.

In his theory, Ausubel (1968) described advance
organizers as being presented at a higher level of
abstraction, generality, and inclusiveness. Mayer (1979a)
defined an advance organizer as generally having the
following characteristics: (1) a short set of verbal or
visual information, (2) presented prior to learning a larger
body of to-be-learned information, (3) containing no
specific content from the to-be-learned material, (4)
providing a means of generating the logical relationships
among the elements in the to-be-learned material, and (5)
influencing the learner's encoding process. In practice,
these organizers have been in the form of outlines,
questions, graphic displays, and abstract passages. While
fitting Ausubel's description of relevant and inclusive
introductory materials, no clear consensus has been reached

on how to construct advance organizers. Often, advance

15
organizers that have a positive effect do not necessarily
follow Ausubel's prescription for abstractness (Corkill,
Glover, & Bruning, 1988).

Effective organizers reported in the literature have a
tendency to be concrete instead of abstract (Mayer, 1979b;
Stone, 1983). One can explain the superiority of concrete
organizers over abstract organizers because the former are
more familiar to the learner (Paivio, 1983), more easily
remembered than abstract materials (Marshark, 1985), and
more easily visualized than abstract materials (Paivio,
1983). However, some investigators have argued that this is
not a problem for Ausubel’s subsumption theory because a
concrete organizer would allow the formation of memorable
schemata or call up prior knowledge for assimilating new
information better than an abstract organizer (Corkill et
a1, 1988). In addition, some evidence has been found that
organizers which are concrete, oral, and visual are more
effective than written ones (Luiten et al, 1980; Stone,
1983). However, a confound in this research is that most
written organizers tend to be abstract, while most
nonwritten organizers tended to be more concrete.

In working with the assumption that concrete organizers
are more effective than abstract organizers, analogical
techniques could be highly useful. The literature
concerning the use of analogical reasoning, particularly in
problem solving, has not been widely referenced in relation

to the use of advance organizers. The most likely reason

16
for this omission is that a majority of advance organizer
work deals with the learning of prose material. Analogical
problem solving takes into account the application of
knowledge and not just the rote learning and retention that
is typically examined in advance organizer research.

In problem solving research, people deal with new
events by retrieving information about holistically similar
experiences (episode-based processing) or about abstracted
characteristics of those experiences (rule-based
processing). In episode-based processing, individuals
access previous problems that are similar analogically or in
other ways. The problem is similar to one they have
previously experienced and they map the solution of the
previous problem onto the new one (Holyoak, 1984). In
contrast, rule—based processing occurs when peOple form
abstract schemata that characterize sets of problems sharing
similar structures (Gick & Holyoak, 1983, 1987). The
presentation of an analogical model of the domain during
training should encourage people to identify and abstract
rules and concepts in the domain. These analogical models
encourage people to integrate new information with a pre-
existing meaningful knowledge base (Mayer, 1979b). In terms
of the organization of material, subjects tend to use
episode-based processing when material is presented randomly
and rule-based processing when material is presented in an
organized fashion (Homa, 1984).

The complexity of the material also has an effect on

17
the type of processing because the more complex the
task/material, the more people must make multiple decisions
which can be open-ended in nature. When material is
complex, subjects tend to abstract rules and structures.
Fried and Holyoak (1984) found that when subjects were
exposed to highly variable examples of artificial
categories, they were more likely to demonstrate transfer of
the material when new exemplars were presented. In terms of
transfer appropriate processing (episode vs. rule-based).
performance on a memory task should be best when the
processing required at retrieval is similar to that evoked
at encoding (Brooks, 1987). If two events are processed in
the same way, the processing of the second can serve as a
retrieval cue for the first.

In a series of studies, Mayer (1975a, 1976) provided
empirical support for this proposition. Mayer demonstrated
that providing people with analogical models for the
material they are learning has systematic effects on later
performance. Such models generally improve individuals’
understanding of underlying concepts and performance on
complex, far-transfer tasks. In contrast, they have no
effect on simple, near-transfer tasks (Mayer 1975a, 1976;
Mayer & Bromage, 1980). In general, when tasks are complex,
model—provided training is beneficial and when tasks are
simple, no-model provided training is beneficial. In a
recent problem-solving study, Caplan and Schooler (1990)

found empirical support for the use of models and organized

18
instructions for complex tasks and they found support for
the use of no-models for simple tasks. Also, in simple
tasks the organization of instructions was not essential.

In a series of experiments, Dinnel and Glover (1985)
proposed that how well the advance organizer is encoded
should influence its effectiveness in facilitating learning
from.prose. An advance organizer encoded in a way that
requires attention to its semantic base would be better
recalled than an organizer encoded more superficially. The
authors assert that the conflicting results in the
literature are partially attributed to the fact that
organizers are not encoded very well (Dinnel & Glover,
1985). In their experiments, it was found that subjects who
paraphrased the advance organizer prior to receiving the
learning material were able to recall more information. The
authors do note that this paraphrasing does require more
time in the training/educational setting, however, the
positive effects were well worth it (Dinnel & Glover, 1985).
In addition, Kloster and Winne (1989) found that simply
presenting a genuine advance organizer does not guarantee
that individuals will use it effectively. However, when
individuals did use an advance organizer effectively, their
achievement increased, especially when the organizer was of
a concept or analogy nature.

Advance organizers typically come before the material
to—be-learned to set up a mental schema to encode this new

material. In a series of experiments, Mayer and Bromage

19
(1980) presented either an organizer before or after reading
a text concerning a new computer programming language. The
before group scored higher on recall of conceptual idea
units, produced more appropriate intrusions, and made more
novel inferences. The after group scored higher on
technical idea units, but produced more inappropriate
intrusions, connectives, and vague summaries (Mayer &
Bromage, 1980). Their results support the notion that the
locus of the effects was at the time of encoding rather than
at the time of retrieval.

Overall, advance organizers have generally been used
with tasks involved with the learning of prose. Their
effect, especially in a behavior modeling training
environment, on skill acquisition has not been thoroughly
explored. This study examines skill acquisition in a
behavior modeling training context. Advance organizers
should be more effective with material that is poorly
structured and with measures of transfer over retention
(Mayer, 1979b). Complex skills, especially those of a
social nature, need to be transferred to various situations
more than a simple task that is performed the same way each
time. With the learning of a complex skill, advance
organizers should serve an assimilative role for the
learning of new material by providing anchoring ideas at a
high level of inclusiveness. The advance organizer should
provide a structure to assimilate the new learning material

with the individual's prior knowledge and should enhance not

20

only the retention of complex skills, but their
generalizability to different situations as well. In
addition, this study explores their effectiveness across
various levels of ability.
Symbolic Coding

As a training technique, behavior modeling (Goldstein &
Sorcher, 1974) has proven to be an effective device in the
acquisition of skills, particularly those of a manual or
social nature (Decker & Nathan, 1985; Latham & Saari, 1979).
Based to a large extent on social learning theory (Bandura,
1977), behavior modeling enables the learner to observe
others in a model performing the to-be-learned task and to
learn the proper methods and techniques required for the
skill/task. The purpose of this review is to examine how to
best train individuals to symbolically code information
received in behavior modeling training.

Behavior modeling typically involves five components:
(1) a modeling component where trainees observe the
behavior, (2) a retention component where trainees try to
retain the information, (3) a behavioral rehearsal component
where trainees practice the modeled performance, (4) a
feedback component where comments are provided to the
trainees, and (5) a transfer of training component where the
trainees attempt to generalize the learned material (Decker
& Nathan, 1985). The training involved in this study deals
primarily with the modeling and retention components of

behavior modeling training. How best to get trainees to

21
code symbolically, whether providing them with rule codes or
having them generate their own, is examined in this study:

With behavior modeling training, subjects are first
provided with a model that displays a set of key behaviors.
The modeling component contains learning points which are
written descriptions of key behaviors that must be used to
complete a task (Decker & Nathan, 1985). These learning
points can be behavior descriptions which are simple
specific descriptions of the behavior performed (“Say hello
to the applicant"), summary labels which are key words used
to define or cue certain behaviors or classes of behaviors
("greet applicant“), or rule-oriented codes which specify
underlying sets of behaviors which can be used to complete
the task but do not necessarily include a description of the
actual behavior (“greet applicant warmly and have the
applicant sit down so you can start the interview“). With
simple manual skills, the behavior descriptive learning
points are preferable. With social skills or tasks that
require complex cognitive abilities, rule-oriented learning
points are more effective as there is more than one way to
complete the task. (Decker & Nathan, 1985).

In other research, Baldwin (1992) examined the effects
of alternative modeling strategies on the outcomes of
interpersonal—skills training. He found that the
presentation of multiple scenarios had no effects on trainee

reactions, learning, retention, and behavioral measures of

reproduction and generalization. On the other hand, models

22
that displayed positive and negative displays had a
significant positive effect on trainee generalization and a
significant negative effect on reproduction.

Mann and Decker (1984) examined the effect of key
behavior distinctiveness on generalization and recall.
Making key behaviors with low or moderate natural
distinctiveness more distinctive enhanced attention to and
retention of modeled events, but did not have the same
effect for those key behaviors which were already naturally
distinctive. In addition, they found that observing
learning points and a form of a model (combined or with
learning points interspersed in the model) significantly
facilitated generalization for the dimensions shown to have
moderate to low natural distinctiveness. The dimension with
the highest distinctiveness was less affected by the various
combinations of learning points and models. However,
generalization scores still were significantly greater for
subjects who saw learning points and a model than for those
who saw learning points only. The authors recommend the use
of an interspersed condition, whereby the learners view the
model, then view the learning points, and then view the
model with the learning points displayed just before the key
behaviors appear in the model. This condition is preferred
because it is anticipated that both contrast and
meaningfulness would increase as learning points and
behavior became more closely linked (Mann & Decker,-1984).

In viewing the model, the question arises as to “How

23

would subjects best encode the learning material?" Various
retentional processes help the trainee remember and retain
what was seen in the modeling display. These retentional
processes include the building of better models as mentioned
above, the use of symbolic coding and rehearsal, as well as
the generation of learning points by the trainees
themselves. Research by Decker (1980, 1982) highlights the
importance of a formalized retention process over any
retention processes performed by the trainees spontaneously.
The author defines symbolic coding as the process by which
individuals organize and reduce the diverse elements of a
modeled performance into a pattern of verbal symbols that
can be easily stored, retained intact over time, quickly
retrieved, and used to guide performance. Symbolic
rehearsal is the process in which individuals visualize or
imagine themselves performing behaviors that previously were
seen performed by another individual (Bandura, 1977).

Training that includes both symbolic coding and
rehearsal significantly facilitated the generalization of
observational learning to a novel context (Decker, 1982).
In other research, the use of trainee-generated codes over
trainer—produced codes has been examined. Decker (1982)
found that trainee-generated rule codes in assertiveness
training enhanced generalization and displayed the least
amount of reproduction decay. Along similar lines, Hogan,
Hakel, and Decker (1986) addressed the effect of trainee-

generated codes on generalization. The authors hypothesized

24
that trainee-generated codes would yield greater
generalization assuming that code generation requires
greater initial information processing and results in more
meaningful codes that are better integrated into the unique
cognitive framework of each individual trainee. In their
study, self—generation of rule codes led to significantly
better performance on generalization tests given one week
after training. Content analysis of the trainee-generated
codes revealed that they were conceptually similar to but of
lower quality than the trainer-provided codes. Even though
the codes were of lower quality, they were retained longer
than the higher quality codes provided by the trainer. In
addition, there was no difference between conditions in
participant reactions to the training (Hogan et al, 1986).
(The authors list some qualifications to their conclusions
concerning trainee-generated codes: (1) trainee competence
and bias should be considered in determining the optimal
strategies for rule coding procedures, and (2) a high
quality modeling display based on thorough job analysis is a
prerequisite for the use of trainee-generated codes (Hogan
et al, 1986).

This study further explores the effect of symbolic
coding on the retention and generalizability of training
material and the effect of symbolic coding on trainee self-
efficacy. How best to induce the symbolic coding of
training material, whether through trainer-provided codes or

trainee-generated codes is examined. While not a complete

25
behavior modeling training session (which includes
behavioral rehearsal and feedback), using a videotaped model
and learning points enables a trainee to more effectively
encode skill material than instructing trainees using such
formats as lectures. By providing the model and learning
points, the trainees could be better prepared to practice,
the learning material.
Coggitive Ability

Individual differences in cognitive ability have long
been associated with differences in job performance
(Dunnette, 1976; Hunter, 1986) as well as skill acquisition
(Ackerman & Humphreys, 1990). Ackerman (1987, 1989) has
expanded the work of Norman and Bobrow (1975) to describe
individual differences in cognitive ability as differences
in the amount of cognitive or attentional resources
available to that individual. A person with higher
cognitive ability should have more attentional resources
available to engage in tasks. This is particularly
beneficial in complex tasks that require more attentional
resources (resource-dependent) in their acquisition.

In learning a skill, cognitive ability has its greatest
effects early in the skill acquisition when the task is
novel. However, this effect is not as strong in later
performance when the individual has practiced the task
tsufficiently (Ackerman & Humphreys, 1990). This effect is
<Jnly strong in later performance when the consistency of the

ul'lcierlying processing is lacking or the task is too complex

26
for the learners to fully understand (Ackerman & Humphreys,
1990). In this situation, it is conceivable that
correlations between performance and general cognitive
ability could remain relatively stable or increase over time
(Schmidt, Hunter, Outerbridge, & Goff, 1988).

In terms of assimilation, Mayer (1979b) asserts that
some measures of ability may also tap the extent to which a
subject tends to use an assimilative strategy during
learning. If ability measures the subjects’ efficiency of
learning, then it may also indicate the presence or absence
of assimilative strategy. Individuals with higher cognitive
ability may use more effective strategies than individuals
with lower cognitive ability.

In the context of advance organizers and symbolic
coding, the individual is in the beginning or early stages
of skill acquisition, so the effect of cognitive ability on
retention, generalizability, self-efficacy, and quality
should be present. How advance organizers and symbolic
coding affect individuals of various ability levels is
explored in this study.

Effects on the Processing of New Information

With advance organizers and symbolic coding, two
mechanisms are encountered that are used to enhance the
effectiveness of the encoding of training material. One
could view the process of encoding as similar to the
processes that occur during performance appraisal research.

The three-stage process model for performance appraisal

27
revolves around the gathering, storing, and retrieval of
information (Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell, & McKellin, 1993). For
the purposes of this examination, the first two phases,
gathering and storing, will be combined as the concepts of
advance organizers and symbolic coding affect the storing of
information while it is gathered in a learning environment.
Individuals with higher levels of cognitive ability are
viewed as being more efficient in gathering new information,
storing it in a more organized fashion, and in accurately
retrieving the information.

Gathering and storing. These phases involve the
attention and observation of material as well as the way it
is stored. If advance organizers operate in an assimilation
and correction fashion (Derry, 1984), then information that
is similar to the structure in the advance organizers is
assimilated into it, thereby losing its context-specificity.
On the other hand, dissimilar information from.the advance
organizer maintains its specificity. This observation falls
in line with the research in performance appraisal where
information that is different from that of the category is
retained over long periods of time (Foti & Lord, 1987) along
with information from the whole category. While this can be
detrimental in performance appraisal where you attribute
schema information to an individual even though they did not
display those behaviors, it should be beneficial in training
where an individual needs to retain all aspects of the

schema. In the assindlation and correct function, advance

28
organizers guide the encoding of training material. By
knowing the structure of the skill before receiving the
training material, individuals using advance organizer map
the training information onto the structure already stored
in memory. Structurally, symbolic coding differs from
advance organizers in two ways: (1) symbolic coding occurs
during the learning of the training information based upon
the summary points of the material, whereby advance
organizers are placed prior to the training information and
(2) symbolic coding is based upon the content of the
material, whereby advance organizers are content-free of the
training material, but contain a similar structure to that
of the learning points.

In this experiment, the advance organizer of a jungle
cat serves as a guide in discovering and encoding the
learning points of assertive communication. When learning
points are given, subjects first view the model of assertive
communication, then see the learning points. Individuals
are instructed beforehand that there are certain key
behaviors that they should be trying to pick out. If they
have received an advance organizer, the individual should be
able to pick up the main points of the skill quicker than
those who have not received an advance organizer because
they have a preconceived notion of what those learning
points already are and will search for those points more
actively. In addition, these learning points will not only

be observed quickly, but they are also provided with a link

29
to a concept that is already familiar to the subject. With
an advance organizer containing material the subject is
already familiar with, what he/she then learns can be
connected to that knowledge stored in long-term memory, thus
enhancing the effectiveness of its encoding. Without an
advance organizer, the individual does not have a
preconceived notion of what the learning points are. Once
they receive the learning points, they might be stored in a
context-specific fashion, whereby the individual retains the
learning point, but can only apply them in a situation that
is similar to the one in training or they have trouble
retaining them because they do not have an established link
to long-term.memory while they were encoded.

The advance organizer should have quite a different
effect with trainee-generated learning points. In this
situation, the individual views the model and then has to
generate learning points which represent the key behaviors
rather than receiving them from the trainer. While not
having a preconceived notion of what the structure of the
learning points might be or a link to an already familiar
model, having to create one’s own learning points enacts a
different type of observation and encoding. Knowing that
you will have to generate your own learning points should
lead to an increase in the attention being placed upon the
model thus requiring a deeper level of processing. In
addition, trainees would develop learning points based upon

their own knowledge structure, thus increasing the chances

30
that they will be stored in their own frame of reference.
This own frame of reference should be beneficial to the
long—term encoding of information, thus weakening the
positive effects of an advance organizer. However, a slight
problem.would be that individuals with lower ability might
have a more difficult time in paying attention to the
important information in the models. Advance organizers
could provide this link by providing the structure to a low—
ability individual who has difficulty paying attention to or
creating a structure on their own.

Retrieval. After an individual leaves the training
context, a person might not need to immediately apply the
skills learned. The need to apply the skills might occur
after a certain time interval and the skills mdght need to
be applied in a different context. In this case, the
material, to be useful, needs not only to be retained over
time, but retained in a fashion that will allow it to be
used in situations that might be different from.the ones in
which they were acquired.

Advance organizers provide a link between an
established structure in long-term.memory and the summary
points of the training material. This link should provide a
quicker and more effective access to the training
information. Even if individuals fail to retrieve the
specifics of the training information, they should be able
to retrieve the advance organizer which will either provide

the structure for the skills or activate the specific

31
information of the training material in which it was linked
to during training. In addition, novel or dissimilar
information is more readily retrieved, and an advance
organizer would certainly qualify as a novel scenario to the
individual trainee.

Once again, the differences in symbolic coding should
also affect the effectiveness of the advance organizer. If
an individual is provided with learning points, an advance
organizer will be helpful in the encoding of material into a
network in long-term.memory versus the attempt to store this
new information without a readily available linkage that the
advance organizer provides. However, this advance organizer
effect could diminish when learning points are generated by
the individual trainee. By generating information in their
"own terms," the individual is not only processing the
information more deeply, but they are setting up the summary
points in their own frameworks versus being given a
framework by the instructor. Once again, there could be a
problem.with low-ability learners not processing the
information properly, but this negative effect could be
eliminated with the use of an advance organizer. With the
advance organizer, these low-ability learners could be
provided with a structure to encode the information and this
structure could lead to an increased retrieval of
information.

Overall, advance organizers provide more of a linking

effect with networks in long-term.memory that enhance the

32

retention and generalizability of training material.
However, this increased effect can be compensated for in
different ways. One of these ways is the trainee-generated
learning point. This mechanism increases retention and
generalizability but in a way that is different from the
advance organizer. Instead of providing a linkage between a
familiar structure and a guiding mechanism, retention and
generalizability are increased through an increased depth of
processing of the codes. Instead of providing a linkage to
a familiar structure, the trainees who generate their own
learning points store the information in their own terms.

Summagy. It would seem that advance organizers and
trainee-generated learning points reach the same end in
terms of increased retention and generalizability, but they
use different routes to get there. For advance organizers,
encoding is enhanced through a schematic mechanism whereby
learners have some prior knowledge as to what the main
points are as well as a long-term.memory concept that
provides a linkage to aid retrieval. Trainee—generated
learning points lead to greater encoding through a “deeper“
level of encoding, whereby individual trainees have higher
levels of attention and processing in the generation of
learning points.
Research Study

In training research, advance organizers, symbolic
coding, and cognitive ability have not been examined

simultaneously in a behavior modeling context. The various

33
issues involved with the three variables and the four
dependent variables (retention, generalizability, self-
efficacy, and quality) are addressed below.

Previous research. With behavior modeling, the models
used in the beginning of the process are usually displayed
by means of a videotaped performance. In the use of
televised instruction, Nugent and her colleagues (Nugent,
Tipton, & Brooks; 1980) examined the effectiveness of
introductory organizers with affective material presented
via television. An advance organizer, consisting of
superordinate generalizations and conceptual questions was
given to a group of students prior to viewing the televised.
performance. Results demonstrated that the advance
organizer significantly increased student comprehension. In
an early study, it was found that subjects who underwent a
videotaped, modeled-learning experience with an advance
organizer acquired and transferred empathic understanding
communication better than subjects who simply read about the
counseling behavior (Dalton, Sundblad, & Hylbert, 1973).
While this experiment used advance organizers with behavior
modeling, it does not show that advance organizers improved
behavior modeling because the same group received both
behavior modeling and an advance organizer, and the other
groups were more or less control conditions.

Retention. One dependent variable is the retention of
the training material. Learning a skill, while necessary,

might not be sufficient once a trainee leaves the training,

34
and retention of the learned material becomes a larger
issue. This study, examining advance organizers, symbolic
coding, and cognitive ability, investigates the linkage of
training material with an individual’s previous knowledge.
Differences in cognitive ability have been shown to be
associated with differences in skill acquisition (Ackerman,
1987, 1989), especially in the early stages of skill
acquisition. With complex skills, it takes a larger amount
of practice to reach a certain level of automaticity than it
would for simple skills. In this experiment, subjects
should not reach that level of automaticity and cognitive
ability should have a main effect on the retention of

training material.

H1: Subjects higher in ability will retain more information

than subjects lower in ability.

Typically, advance organizer research examines the
learning of prose material without examining the retention
of the same material. By linking current training material
to the individual’s previous knowledge, retention should be
enhanced because the advance organizer sets up a connection
in long-term memory. Meta-analyses on advance organizers
(Luiten et al, 1980; Stone, 1983) have found a small
facilitative effect for retention, however, these meta-
analyses have included studies with poorly designed advance

organizers. The better studies (i.e., Mayer) have shown

35

this effect to be fairly consistent.

H2: Subjects who receive advance organizers will retain
more information than subjects who did not receive

advance organizers.

Symbolic coding using trainee-generated codes allows
the individual to store the training material in terms
consistent with his/her cognitive framework rather than
being provided with one. This personalized coding should
enhance retention as well. A motivational issue can also
support the notion of the superiority of trainee-generated
codes. When placed in a situation where a trainee is told
that they will have to generate their own codes, the trainee
might be more likely to pay closer attention to the material
at hand which would be beneficial in the encoding of the
training material. By providing the learning points, a
trainer takes more of a chance as to how well the trainee is

attending to the provided codes.

H3: Subjects who generate their own learning points will
retain more information than subjects who are provided

with learning points.

The placement of advance organizers at the beginning of
training can also increase their effectiveness. These prior

presentations give individuals a schema in which to

36
assimilate the new information into their knowledge base and
structure (Mayer, & Bromage, 1980). The learning points
used in symbolic coding are very similar to the nature of
advance organizers in the way they provide macro—
propositions (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978), but they do this
while the individual is learning the new material. These
learning points serve more along the lines of an overview
which, while effective, do not take into account the
individual’s prior knowledge base and structure (Ausubel,
1968). By providing an advance organizer before the
modeling, symbolic coding should be more effective both in
terms of linking the provided codes to previous knowledge
and in terms of generating higher quality codes that are
also linked to the individual’s cognitive structure.

One of the major qualifications for the use of advance
organizers is that their effectiveness is reduced when used
with material that is highly structured. Behavior modeling,
by nature of its method, is a very structured process, so
the effectiveness of advance organizers could be called into
question. Although symbolic coding takes a great deal of
care to provide a structure to be stored in memory, it does
not take into account the learner’s existing knowledge base.
Advance organizers provide a general schema that allows the
new information to be properly assimilated into the
individual’s current network of prior knowledge.
Assimilation into previous knowledge should be further

increased when trainees generate their own codes instead of

37
being provided with rule codes. The assimilation of
trainee—generated codes with advance organizers allows the
learner to develop a more general schema that is in context
with his/her current knowledge, instead of just learning the
structure of the behavior in the context of a scenario or
two. Symbolic coding provides the structure, but an advance
organizer provides the linkage with previous knowledge.
However, the increased depth of processing required by
trainee-generated learning points should decrease the
effectiveness of advance organizers compared to that of

trainee-provided learning points.

H4: Subjects who receive advance organizers and are
provided with learning points will retain more
information than subjects who do not receive advance
organizers and are provided with learning points.
Subjects receiving advance organizers and generating
their own learning points will retain more information
than subjects who do not receive advance organizers and
generate their own learning points, however, the effect

will not be as large (see Figure 1).

Previous research on the relationship between ability
and advance organizers has been mixed (Luiten et al, 1980;
Mayer, 1979b; Stone, 1983), and the relationship between

symbolic coding and cognitive ability has not been

38

 

Retention

 

 

 

 

Provided Generated

Type of Learning Point

"' Advance Organizer + Background Info

Figgre 1. Hypothesized Effects of Pre-Training Information

and Symbolic Coding on Retention

39
thoroughly explored. Due to mixed results, this research
will examine these relationships in an exploratory fashion.
The key issue is will advance organizers mainly benefit
those with lower cognitive ability or will they benefit
those individuals with higher cognitive ability; and how
effective are various methods of symbolic coding with
various levels of cognitive ability?

In regards to symbolic coding and ability, it is the
author’s viewpoint that low ability individuals should
retain more information if they generate their own learning
points than if they are provided with learning points. High
ability individuals should retain similar amounts of
information regardless of whether they are provided with
learning points or they generate their own. In regards to
advance organizers and ability, it is the author’s viewpoint
that low ability individuals who receive advance organizers
should retain more information than low ability individuals
who receive either background or no prior information, while
high ability individuals should retain similar amounts of
information, regardless of whether or not they receive an
advance organizer, background information, or no information
before training.

Generalizability. The second dependent variable is the
generalizability of the training material. The transfer of
training material from the training environment to the job
has long been recognized as a problem in the workforce

(Michilak, 1981; Baldwin & Ford, 1988). The usefulness of

40
training material is minimized when it is not applied to
various situations. While transfer may not be an issue for
simple manual tasks, it is vital for complex tasks that need
to be applied to various situations, such as the one in this
study. Whereas a manual skill mdght not need to take into
account generalizability (i.e., running a machine), social
skills require a great deal of adaptability and flexibility
in their application to various situations.

Cognitive ability should demonstrate a main effect for
the generalizability of training material. Individuals with
higher levels of cognitive ability should retain more
information than individuals with lower levels of cognitive
ability. This increased retention of general principles for
assertive communication should lead to more information

being generalized to different situations.

H5: Subjects who are high in ability will be better able to
generalize learned information than subjects low in

ability.

Rather than just learning a social skill in the context
of a scenario or two, advance organizers could enhance the
process of generalizability by the nature of its encoding.
In its assimilation with the individual’s prior knowledge,
the to-be-learned material is encoded with a
generalizability mechanism already built into it. Mayer

(1979b) notes that advance organizers should have an

41
especially strong effect on measures of transfer because
they provide the individual with a general structure rather
than one that is situationally-specific. This not only
improves encoding, but it provides a general structure that
can be adapted to different situations. Without advance
organizers, information could be stored in a very
situationally specific manner, especially for subjects who
are low in ability. In his work, Mayer (1975a, 1975b, 1976)
found that subjects who receive advance organizers perfommed
better on far transfer items and control subjects performed

better on near transfer items.

H6: Subjects who receive advance organizers will be better
able to generalize information than subjects who have

not received advance organizers.

In addition, symbolic coding using trainee-generated
codes should increase generalizability because the
individual is not only retaining the material in his/her own
framework, but applying these general rules to various
situations as well. Being provided with rules might be too
closely tied to the model situation in which they were
received, thus affecting the material’s generalizability.
Research has shown that trainee-generated codes should be
more effective than trainer-provided codes in the
generalizability of training information (Hogan et al,

1986).

42
H7: Subjects who generate their own learning points will be
better able to generalize information than subjects who

are provided with learning points.

As noted above, one of the major qualifications for
the use of advance organizers is that their effectiveness is
reduced when used with material that is highly structured.
Behavior modeling, by nature of its method, is a very
structured process, so the effectiveness of advance
organizers could be called into question. However, this
reduced effectiveness of advance organizers in the research
is generally exhibited in the learning and retention of
prose material, not in the generalizability and far-transfer
of learned material. Advance organizers provide a general
schema that allows the new information to be properly
assimilated into the individual’s current network of prior
knowledge. Symbolic coding, while helping to create a
structure to be stored in memory, does not take into account
what the individual already possesses in the structure.
Assimilation into previous knowledge should be further
increased when trainees generate their own rule codes
instead of being provided with codes. The assimilation of
trainee-generated codes with advance organizers allows the
learner to develop a more general schema that is in context
with his/her current knowledge and can be applied to various
situations thereby increasing the generalizability of the

training material. Symbolic coding provides the structure

43
for the training material, but an advance organizer provides
the linkage with previous knowledge. However, the increased
depth of processing required by trainee-generated learning
points should decrease the effectiveness of advance
organizers compared to that of trainee-provided learning

points.

H8: Subjects who receive advance organizers and are
provided with learning points will generalize more
information than subjects who do not receive advance
organizers and are provided with learning points.
Subjects who receive advance organizers and generate
their own learning points will generalize more
information than subjects who do not receive advance
organizers and generate their own learning points,

however, the effect won’t be as large (see Figure 2).

Previous research on the relationship between ability
and advance organizers has been mixed (Mayer, 1979b; Luiten
et al, 1980; Stone, 1983), and the relationship between
symbolic coding and cognitive ability has not been
thoroughly explored. In terms of generalizability, both
relationships have not been thoroughly examined. This
research will further explore these two relationships
concerning generalizability. The key issues are twofold.
First, will advance organizers mainly benefit those with

lower cognitive ability or will they benefit those

44

 

Generallzablllty

 

 

 

 

Provided Generated

Type of Learning Point

"' Advance Organizer + Background Info

Figure 2. Hypothesized Effects of Pre-Training Information

and Symbolic Coding on Generalizability

45
individuals with higher cognitive ability? Second, how
effective are various methods of symbolic coding with
various levels of cognitive ability?

Concerning symbolic coding and ability, it is the
author’s belief that subjects who are low in ability should
be better able to generalize learned material when they
generate their own learning points than low ability subjects
who are provided with learning points, while high ability
subjects who generate their own learning points should also
be able to generalize learned material better than high
ability subjects who are provided with learning points.
However, the effect size should be smaller than that of low
ability subjects. Concerning advance organizers and
ability, it is the author’s belief that subjects who are low
in ability and receive an advance organizer should be better
able to generalize learned information than subjects who
receive background information or nothing, while high
ability subjects who receive an advance organizer should do
only slightly better, if any at all, than high ability
subjects who receive background information or nothing.

Self-Efficagy. The third dependent variable is an
individual’s self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to a
person’s estimate of his/her capacity to perform a task
(Bandura, 1986). Research has shown that individuals who
think they can perform well on a task tend to do better than
those who think they will fail (Gist & Mitchell, 1992), so

increasing one’s self-efficacy about a task should be

46
beneficial for the trainee.

Differences in cognitive ability are associated with
differences in the acquisition of skills (Ackerman &
Humphreys, 1990). In accordance, cognitive ability should
also be related to higher degrees of self—efficacy toward

assertive communication skills.

H9: Subjects who are higher in ability will have higher

self-efficacy than subjects who are lower in ability.

How advance organizers affect self-efficacy is also
examined. Subjects receiving advance organizers are told
that these organizers should be applied to the upcoming
training. These advance organizers facilitate the encoding
of the information to-be-learned. This will not only lead
to more effective understanding and encoding of the training
material, but it should also lead the individual to form
beliefs that he/she is effectively learning and
understanding the material, thereby, increasing his/her

self-efficacy.

Hm: Subjects who receive advance organizers will have
higher self-efficacy than subjects who receive

background information.

A behavior modeling approach with trainer-provided

codes has been shown to have a positive affect on self-

47
efficacy (Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989). This effect
should be higher when the trainees generate their own codes
because they are more involved in the training, in addition

to retaining and generalizing the material more effectively.

Hm: Subjects who generate their own learning points will
have higher self-efficacy than subjects who are

provided with learning points.

Subjects who are provided with an advance organizer and
who generate their own rule codes have two opportunities to
successfully encode the codes. However, the effect of
including an advance organizer with trainees generating
their own learning points should be smaller than when

trainees are provided with learning points.

Hm: Subjects who receive advance organizers and are
provided with learning points have higher self-efficacy
than subjects who do not receive advance organizers and
are provided with learning points. Subjects receiving
advance organizers and generating their own learning
points will have higher self-efficacy than subjects who
do not receive advance organizers and generate their
own learning points, however, the effect will not be as

large (see Figure 3).

48

 

Self Etilcacy

 

 

 

 

Provided Generated

Type of Learning Point

"' Advance Organizer + Background info

‘

Figgre 3. Hypothesized Effects of Pre-Training Information
and Symbolic Coding on Self-Efficacy

49

In addition, the relationship between symbolic coding
and cognitive ability, and advance organizers and cognitive
ability will be explored. It is expected that even though
subjects who are high in ability should retain and
generalize more information and construct learning points of
higher quality than low ability subjects, the difference in
self-efficacy between the two low ability groups should be
larger than the difference between the two high ability
groups.

Concerning symbolic coding and ability, it is the
author’s belief that subjects who are low in ability should
have higher self—efficacy when they generate their own
learning points than low ability subjects who receive
learning points. Subjects who are high in ability should
have higher self-efficacy when they generate their own
learning points than high ability subjects who are provided
with own learning points. However, the effect should be
larger for the low ability subjects. Concerning advance
organizers and ability it is the author’s belief that
subjects who are low in ability and receive advance
organizers should have higher self-efficacy than subjects
who are low in ability and receive background information.
Subjects who are high in ability should have similar levels
of self-efficacy, regardless of whether or not they received
advance organizers or background.

Quality of Learning Points. Finally, there is a

quality issue in the generation of codes by trainees. Lower

50

ability trainees might experience difficulty in generating

codes of high quality, which could lead to problems in

generalizing the material to other situations. However, an

advance organizer could provide lower ability individuals

with a schema that could guide them in generating codes of a

higher quality that are similar to the ones in the learning

points-provided condition. This quality issue as related to

ability and advance organizers is explored in this study.

Hm:

Subjects who are high in ability will produce higher
quality learning points than subjects who are low in

ability.

Subjects who receive advance organizers will produce

higher quality learning points than subjects who

receive background or no information.

Low ability subjects who receive advance organizers
will produce higher quality learning points than low
ability subjects receiving background or no
information. High ability subjects will produce
similar learning points in terms of quality, regardless

of the type of pre-training information.

METHOD

Sample

The sample consisted of 183 undergraduates (Study I =
61; Study II = 122) recruited from the Psychology Department
subject pool at Michigan State University.

Design

The participants ran through a modified behavior
modeling training course on assertive communication in both
studies. In order to examine the effect of advance
organizers in the absence of symbolic coding, the experiment
was reported in two studies. The first study examined the
effects of pre-training information in the absence of
symbolic coding and the second study examined the dual
effects of pre-training information and symbolic coding on
the outcomes of training.

Study I. The research consisted of two pre-training
information conditions (advance organizer & background
information).

Study II. 2 (trainer-provided & trainee generated
learning points) X 2 (advance organizer & background

information) design.

51

52

Independent Variables.
Pre—training informationzadvance organizer. The

advance organizer is of an expository nature (Ausubel,
1968). An expository advance organizer is used with
material that is unfamiliar to the learner. These subsumers
furnish anchorage in terms that are already familiar to the
learner. This advance organizer includes established and
relevant knowledge that already exists in the individual’s
cognitive structure (see Appendix A).

Background knowledge concerning assertive communication
skills (see Appendix B) was obtained from the work of Smith
(1975).

Sympolic coding. Trainer-provided rule codes were
obtained from an assertive communication behavior modeling
training course used in research by Baldwin (1992) based on
the work by Smith (1975). Trainee-generated rule codes were
constructed by the trainees after viewing the models in the
videotape.

Cognitive Ability. Participants took the Wonderlic
Personnel Test to obtain a measure of their cognitive
ability (see Appendix C).

Dependent Variables

Learning. The dependent variable was measured using a
20-item multiple choice paper-and—pencil test based upon the
six learning points to measure the amount of material from

the training that was learned (see Appendix D).

53

Reproduction. Participants underwent a videotaped
role-play in which they needed to utilize the assertive
communication skills obtained in training in a situation
that is identical to that used in the positive videotaped
model (see Appendix E). They were rated by expert
undergraduate students assisting in the study using a 14-
item, seven-point Likert scale. While not being used as the
learning measure, this role—play serves as an opportunity
for the participants to practice their skill.

Retention. Two weeks after the training, participants
returned to take a paper-and-pencil test identical to that
of the learning measure, measuring the amount of knowledge
from the original training that was retained.

Generalizability.» Two weeks after the training,
subjects returned and underwent a videotaped role-play
exhibiting a different situation that required assertiveness
communication skills (see Appendix F). They were rated by
expert undergraduate students assisting in the study using a
10-item, seven-point Likert scale.

Self-Efficagy. Self-efficacy was measured using a
seven—item paper-and-pencil measure with a nine-point Likert
scale (see Appendix G). This measurement occurred after the
participants completed the retention and generalizability
measures, two weeks after the training. Before training,
participants across research cells were assumed to have

equal distributions of self-efficacy.

54

Quality. This variable is measured to see how accurate
the trainee-generated learning points are to the pre-
established learning points. They were rated by expert
undergraduate students assisting in the study using a 7—
item, seven—point Likert scale containing the pre-
established learning points (see Appendix H).

Procedure .

Participants underwent the training in groups ranging
from three to eight, based upon how many of those signed-up
for the experiment arrived at their scheduled time.

Pre-training information conditions. Participants were
in one of two conditions at the beginning of training: (1)
an advance organizer condition, or (2) a background
information condition based upon factual knowledge
concerning assertive communication. In the advance
organizer condition, participants were instructed on the
reasons for using advance organizers, and were given an
example of one in use. In the background information
condition, participants were just told they were to receive
background information on assertive communication. After
the introduction, both conditions had three minutes to read
the information with instructions that they would have to
paraphrase the material when the time expired. After three
minutes, both conditions took four minutes to paraphrase the
information they received in the pre-training condition.
This was done to ensure that the information was encoded

(Dinnel & Glover, 1985). After four minutes, participants

55
in both conditions handed in their paraphrased sheets and
were told that they would be accountable for the material
and tested on it at a later time.

Videotaped models. Subjects began the behavior
modeling session by viewing a videotaped sequence of three
displays. The first model displayed a positive example of
assertive communication (see Appendix I). The second model
is the same situation, however, the person in the model
displayed a negative example of assertive communication (see
Appendix J). The third model is a replay of the first model
displaying a positive example of assertive communication.
The content of the models was constructed in lines with the
work by Smith (1975) on assertive communication. The
videotaped models were taken from previous research
conducted by Baldwin (1992).

Symbolic coding conditions. The study was divided into
two studies. Study I did not have a symbolic coding
condition. In study I, participants watched all three
models in succession without any time in between models for
symbolic coding. Each model was merely introduced as being
either a positive or a negative example of assertive
communication. Study II had two symbolic coding conditions:
(1) a trainer-provided learning point condition (see
Appendix K), or (2) a trainee-generated learning point
condition. This procedure is similar to that used in prior
research (Hogan et al, 1986). Prior to the symbolic coding

manipulation, both groups were instructed on the purpose of

56
rule coding and on the existence of six rules underlying
effective assertive communication, along with an example of
learning points for a skill. In the trainee-generated
condition, participants were given an additional example of
how learning points could be applied to a variety of
situations as well as instruction on how to generate a
learning point. After the instruction, participants in the
trainee—generated condition practiced generating learning
points for a familiar skill (doing well in a class) while
the experimenter walked around the room to inspect their
learning points. After the practice, participants in the
trainee-generated condition were told that they would have
to generate learning points of assertive communication
skills after watching the models. Participants in both
conditions then watched the models. After the model,
participants in the trainer-provided condition were given
four minutes to 100k over the rule codes, while participants
in the trainee-generated condition were given four minutes
to construct the six learning points. Before viewing the
second model of a negative example, participants in the
trainer-provided condition were told to closely attend to
the learning points as they were being displayed in the
model, while participants in the trainee-generated condition
were told they would have to generate six learning points
exemplifying negative assertive communication. After the
second model, participants in the trainer-provided condition

were told to review their codes for four minutes, while

57
participants in the trainee-generated condition had four
minutes to generate learning points describing ineffective
assertive communication skill. Before the third model,
participants in the trainer—provided condition were told to
closely attend to the learning points as they were being
displayed in the model, while participants in the trainee-
generated condition were told to attend to the two sets of
codes they had generated, as they would be generating a
third set of codes representing effective assertive‘
communication after the third model. After the third model,
participants in the trainer-provided condition were given
four minutes to review their learning points, while
participants in the trainee-generated condition had four
minutes to generate the six main learning points of
effective assertive communication.

Tests for learning and reproduction.r At the conclusion
of the training, the participants provided two measures
based upon the training material: (1) a paper-and-pencil
learning test and (2) a role-play reproduction.

Post-training measures. TWO weeks after the training,
participants returned to take the cognitive ability measure,
the generalizability role-play, the paper—and-pencil
retention test, and the self-efficacy measure. In addition,
participants were asked to recall the pre-training

information concepts from the training session.

58
Pilot Test

The pilot study sample consisted of 30 undergraduates
recruited from the Psychology Department subject pool at
Michigan State University. A pilot test was conducted for
the pre-training information conditions (advance organizer
and background information) X symbolic coding conditions
(learning points provided, learning points generated, and
control). The pilot was conducted to examine the strength
of the independent variable manipulations and the
reliability of the dependent variables.

Several changes were made based on the results of the
pilot study. First, the author decided to strengthen the
manipulations of the independent variables due to small
effect sizes for advance organizers and symbolic coding in
the pilot study. To strengthen the manipulation of advance
organizers, participants in the advance organizer condition
were given a description of the purpose of advance
organizers, an example of how an advance organizer works as
well as instructions to apply the advance organizer to the
upcoming training material. These hints were designed to
facilitate the transfer of the advance organizer to increase
the retention and generalizability of the training material
(Gick & Holyoak, 1987). To strengthen the symbolic coding
manipulation from the pilot study, participants practiced
generating learning points to a well-known skill. Second,
interrater reliabilities were calculated for the

reproduction and generalizability measures. For the items

59

where the reliabilities were low, the experimenter and
raters created anchors for those items to improve the
reliabilities. In addition, the learning and retention
measure had several items with high difficulty values, so
the distractors were modified to lower the p-values.

Further results from pilot study as well as previous
use of the some of the measures by Baldwin (1992) are

presented in Appendix L.

RESULTS

The results for this study are reported in three parts.
First, the reliability of the measures used in this study
was examined. Second, the effect of pre-training
information (advance organizers and background information)
on training outcomes was examined in a condition where
participants did not undergo symbolic coding (Study I).
Third, the hypotheses of the study, along with certain
exploratory analyses were examined in a 2 (advance organizer
and background information) X 2 (learning points provided
and learning points generated) design (Study II).
Reliability of Measurement

Various methods were used to examine the reliability of
the measures of the performance of 183 participants in this
study. Reproduction, generalizability, and quality were
assessed using interrater reliability for two raters.
Learning, retention, and self-efficacy were assessed using
coefficient alpha. The reliability for cognitive ability, as
measured by the Wonderlic, was based upon information from
the publisher ("Wonderlic Personnel Test," 1992).

The interrater correlation matrix for reproduction
scores is displayed in Table 1. The correlations for the 14

items of the scale varied in strength from .53 to .96, with

60

61

mmau:

 

 

 

be. mm. mm. mm. ac. mm. ov. «v. mm. Ha. am. pm. av. «N. «.5
mm. ma. mm. mm. em. mm. 5H. .2”. ha. ha. cm. om. S. mam

mm. we. ma. on. ma. NH. ma. mo. mo. ma. .3. .3. «am

mm. va. we. «a. ma. .3. mo... mo. mo... om. mo. :6

um. mm. mm. vm. am. No... ma. NH. mm. HH. cam

me. am. vm. an. no. om. mo. 2... mo. mm

vm. mm. an. no. ma. ma. ha. ha. mm

mm. «H. mo. mm. ma. hm. mo. pm

.3. ho. ma. mo. ma. .3. mm

2.. 3... ha. ha. Her mm

2.. «m. mm. no... «5

mm. ma. vc. mm

2.. 0H. «m

cm. Hm

Am\¢v

vim mad «.2 Had cad ad m4 5‘ ed md 3N mc m4 .2 umuom

mauom :OMuospouamm “Om xenon: cofluoaouuoo umumuuoucH

H 3..an

62
a reliability of .67 for the overall rating (Item #14). To
measure reliability for the experiment, a mean of the 14
items of the reproduction scale was calculated for each
rater, generating an interrater reliability of .85. This
was the reliability used in the experiment. To measure
reproduction in the experiment, an overall mean of the
consensus ratings between the two raters (items 1 - 14) was
used.

The interrater correlation matrix for generalizability
scores is displayed in Table 2. The correlations for the 10
items of the scale varied in strength from .36 to .74, with
a reliability of .57 for the overall rating (Item #10). To
measure reliability for the experiment, a mean of the 10
items of the generalizability scale was calculated for each
rater, generating an interrater reliability of .64. This
was the reliability used in the experiment. To measure
generalizability in the experiment, an overall mean of the
consensus ratings between the two raters (items 1 - 10) was
used.

The interrater correlation matrix for Quality scores is
displayed in Table 3. The correlations for the seven items
of the scale varied in strength from .31 to .78, with a
reliability of .31 for the overall rating (Item #7). To
measure reliability for the experiment, a mean of the seven
items of the reproduction scale was calculated for each
rater, generating an interrater reliability of .58. This

was the reliability used in the experiment. To measure

63
Table 2

Interrater Correlation Matrix for Generalizability

 

 

Rater

(A/B) B1 B2 B3 B4 BS B6 B7 B8 B9 B10
Al .64'

A2 .33 .50

A3 .29 .32 .48

A4 .21 .19 .25 .52

A5 .08 .09 .20 .06 .38

A6 .21 .22 .18 .18 .22 .36

A7 .18 .22 .26 .27 .23 .32 .63

A8 .04 .10 .03 .08 .05 .06 .23 .74

A9 .29 .13 .24 .23 .21 .27 .29 .11 .38

A10 .40 .31 .32 .32 .20 .36 .43 .13 .38 .57

 

n=183

Al

64

Table 3

Interrater Correlation Matrix for Quality

 

 

 

Rater (A/B) A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7
B1 .71

B2 .14 .49

B3 .19 .09 .78

B4 .14 .05 .01 .54

B5 .02 .05 -.06 .10 .54

B6 .22 .04 -.24 .19 .17 .60

B7 .14 .25 .18 .26 .26 .07 .31
n = 63

65
quality in the experiment, an overall mean of the consensus
ratings between the two raters (items 1 - 7) was used.

The learning measure consisted of twenty multiple
choice items based upon the learning points of assertive
communication. In examining the corrected item-total
correlations for the twenty iteme (see Table 4), items eight
and eleven displayed negative item-total correlations and
were subsequently dropped. Using the eighteen remaining
items, the coefficient alpha was .64. Like the learning
measure, retention was evaluated using only the eighteen
items specified by the learning measure with a coefficient
alpha = .61.

Finally, the reliability of self-efficacy was evaluated
using coefficient alpha. This seven item measure was based
upon one’s confidence in their ability to enact the learning
points as well as their assessment of their overall
assertive communication ability. The coefficient alpha of
self-efficacy was .91.

The reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test has
been demonstrated in a number of different ways. Test-
retest reliabilities have ranged from .82 to .94 ("Wonderlic
Personnel Test,“ 1992). Longitudinal reliability as
measured by Dodrill (1983) was .94. Correlation of odd
items and even items ranged from .88 to .94 (“Wonderlic

Personnel Test," 1992).

66
Table 4

Corrected Item-Total Correlations for Learning Scale

 

Item. ItemsTotal

# Correlation

1 .23
2 .23
3 .17
4 .26
5 .20
6 .18
7 .12
8 -.04
9 .14
10 .03
11 -.08
12 .14
13 .38
14 .30
15 .19
16 .35
17 .27
18 .42
19 .22
20 .40

 

n=183

67
Study I

In the first study, 61 participants received either an
advance organizer (n = 34) or background information (n =
27) in a no symbolic coding condition to discover the nature
of their independent effect on the dependent variables.
Regression analyses were conducted by first entering
cognitive ability and then learning as covariates. This was
done to examine the effects of pre-training information on
the dependent variables over and above that which could be
attributed to cognitive ability and the learning of the
training material. The means and standard deviations for
these two conditions, along with the adjusted means with
cognitive ability and learning covaried out, are listed in
Table 5 and the correlation matrix for the variables is
listed in Table 6.

Retention. The results of the regression on retention
are displayed in Table 7. In the first step, cognitive
ability produced an Rzibf .13, pg.01., and learning produced
a significant change in R?, .47, p<.01. After these two
variables were entered, pre-training information resulted in
a near zero change in R?. .After the main effects were
added, all two-way interactions, including exploratory
analyses, among cognitive ability, learning, and pre-
training information were added. None of these resulted in
a significant interaction. After the two-way interactions
were entered, the three-way interaction was entered

producing a non-significant change in R?. The total

68
Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables for Study I

 

 

 

 

 

 

AO BI
n=34 n=27
Mean SD AM Mean SD AM
Reproduction 3.20 0.88 3.12 3.42 0.88 3.53
Cognitive Ability 24.38 5.91 22.59 4.75
Learning 11.76 2.09 11.07 2.73
Retention 12.71 2.44 12.41 12.22 2.78 12.59
Generalizability 3.92 0.59 3.88 3.79 0.74 3.84
Self-Efficacy 6.87 1.71 6.93 7.33 1.00 7.26
n = 61
A0 = Advance Organizer
BI = Background Information
AM = Adjusted Mean with Cognitive Ability and Learning as

Covariates

 

69
Table 6

Intercorrelations Among Study Variables: Study I

 

 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Cognitive
Ability (1) 1.00
Learning
(2) .30b 1.00
Retention
(3) .36c .76c 1.00
Generalizability
(4) .29b .27b .25b 1.00
Self-Efficacy
(5) -.31b — 07 — 11 -.08 1 00
Pre-training
Information (6) .16 .14 .09 .09 -.16 1.00

 

n

b
c

=61

p<.05
p<.01

Pre-training Information:

0=Background Information
1=Advance Organizer

70
Table 7

Regression Analysis Results on Retention Measure: Study I

 

 

VARIABLE Beta R R2 R2
Change

Step 1:

Cognitive

Ability (C) -O.92 .36 .13 .13C

Step 2:

Learning (L) 0.02 .77 .60 .47c

Step 3:

Pre—training

Info (P) -4.01° .77 .60 .00

Step 4

C X L 1.34

C X P 4.78a

L X P 3.39 .79 .62 .02

Step 5

C X L X P -4 28 80 64 02

n=61

a = p<.10

b = p<.05

C = p<.01

Note: Final Standardized Beta weights were used

71
variance accounted for by all the variables for retention
was .64.

With learning taking up the largest amount of variance
in the prediction of retention, it was postulated that
learning might mediate the relationship between pre-
information and retention. However, with further analysis,
it was discovered that the correlation between the use of
advance organizers and retention was non—significant (.09),
therefore, negating the idea that learning served as a
mediator between pre-information and retention.

Generalizability. The results of the regression on
generalizability are displayed in Table 8. Cognitive
ability and learning were entered in the first two steps.
Cognitive ability produced a significant R2<of .08, pg.05,
and learning did not produce a significant change in R2.
After these two variables were entered, pre-training
information resulted in a near zero change in R?. .After the
main effects, all two-way interactions, including
exploratory analyses, among cognitive ability, learning, and
pre-training information were entered into the equation.
None of these resulted in a significant interaction.
Finally, the three-way interaction was entered in the final
step and resulted in a near zero change in R?. The total
variance accounted for by all the variables for
generalizability was .14.

Self-efficagy. The results of the regression on self-

efficacy are displayed in Table 9. Cognitive ability and

72

Table 8

Regression Analysis Results on Generalizability: Study I

 

 

Note:

Final Standardized Beta

weights are used

VARIABLE Beta R R2 R2 Change
Step 1:

Cognitive Ability (C) -0.38 .29 .08 .08b
Step 2:

Learning (L) -0.48 .35 .12 .04
Step 3:

Pre-training Info (P) -1.80 .35 .12 .00
Step 4:

C X L 1.14

C X P 1.69

L X P 2.43 .37 .14 .02
Step 5:

C X L X P —2.42 .38 .14 .00
n=61

a = p<.10

b = p<.05

C = p<.01

73
Table 9

Regression Analysis Results on Self-Efficacy: Study I

 

 

VARIABLE Beta R R2 R2 Change
Step 1:

Cognitive Ability (C) 0.14 .31 .09 .09b
Step 2:

Learning (L) 0.18 .31 .09 .00
Step 3:

Pre-training Info (P) 4.28 .33 .11 .02
Step 4:

C X L . -0.34

C X P -5.23

L X P -3.72 .38 .15 .04
Step 5:

C X L X P 4.65 .41 .17 .02
n=61

a = p<.10

b = p<.05

C = p<.01

Note: Final Standardized Beta weights used

74

learning were entered in the first two steps. Cognitive
ability produced a significant Rzin .09, p<.05. However,
the relationship was in a negative direction, with
individuals with lower scores on the cognitive ability
measure having higher self-efficacy. Learning was then
entered and produced a non—significant change in R?. The
use of pre—information was then entered and it did not
produced a significant change in R?. .After the main
effects, all two-way interactions, including exploratory
analyses, among cognitive ability, learning, and pre-
training information were entered into the equation. None
of these resulted in a significant interaction. Finally,
the three-way interaction was entered and did not produce a
significant change in R?. The total variance accounted for
by all the variables for self-efficacy was .17.
Study II

In the second study, 122 participants were randomly
assigned to one of four conditions (advance organizer and
learning points provided, n = 31; advance organizer and
learning points generated, n = 30; background information
and learning points provided, n = 28; and background
information and learning points generated, n = 33). Like
study I, regression analyses were conducted by first
entering cognitive ability and the learning score as
covariates. The means and standard deviations for these
four conditions are listed in Table 10, the adjusted means

with cognitive ability and learning covaried out are listed

economemo muceom meecummq can
pope>oum mucflom engaged: and
:OwquLOMEH pasoumxopm u Hm
Lunaccmuo monp>p< u 04

75

 

 

 

«man:
35 Rd Ba Ba .3225
b¢.o om.b mm.H ma.b mN.H mm.m oo.H ma.b hupowummimawm
mm.o mm.m Hm.o mm.m Nb.o mb.m vb.o or.m >uwawnmnwamumcmo
0N.N mH.MH NM.H mv.mH mb.m hm.NH Hm.N mv.va coflucmumm
mm.m mm.HH mm.H mN.mH mv.N om.HH vm.H mm.va magnuqu
mH.fl mo.mm mb.v mm.mm wv.¢ bo.vN Ho.m m¢.mm huflaflnd .mOU
mm.o om.m fib.o NH.m «v.0 mo.m 05.0 mm.m cofiuozpouawm
om new: am and: am new: am new:
mm»: mm": on": Hm":
0mg and 0&4 and
6 HQ w Hm w Ofl w Cd

HH aosum no“ unawuuw>mo Unaccoum one mcooz

ca manna

76

in Table 11 and the correlation matrix for the variables is
listed in Table 12.

Retention. H5 stated that cognitive ability would have
a positive effect on the retention of training information.
This hypothesis was confirmed when entered into the
regression equation first, producing an thof .07, p<.01
(see Table 13). Next, learning was entered into the
regression equation producing a significant change in chof
.46, p<.01. IL stated that individuals who received an
advance organizer would retain more training information
than individuals who received background information and H3
stated that individuals who generated their own learning
points would retain more information than individuals who
received learning points. Both were entered into the
regression at the same time and produced a non-significant
change in R?., disconfirming both hypotheses. Next, all
two-way interactions, including exploratory analyses, among
the four variables were entered into the equation. H4
predicted an interaction between the conditions of pre—
training information and symbolic coding. Results found
that the interaction between symbolic coding and pre-
training information was not significant, thereby
disconfirming the hypothesis. Exploratory analyses for the
other two-way interactions also produced non-significant
results. Finally, all three-way interactions were included
in the final step. No significant interaction was

discovered. The total variance accounted for by all the

77

Table 11

Adjusted Means for Dependent Variables in Study II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AO & AO & BI & BI &
LPP LPG LPP LPG
n=31 n=30 n=28 n=33
Reproduction 2.88 3.18 3.00 3.39
Retention 13.61 13.48 14.26 13.99
Generalizability 3.67 3.83 3.80 3.93
Self-Efficacy 7.09 7.06 7.08 7.32
Quality 2.67 2.56
n=122
A0 = Advance Organizer
BI = Background Information
LPP = Learning Points Provided
LPG = Learning Points Generated

 

pobmuocoo nonwod mcficuooqufl .oopw>onm moceom unacuooauo “mcwooo oflaobs>m
Homecomuo ooco>o¢ua .coflBMEAOMEH pesoumxommuo “.0ucH mcficfiouuumum

 

78

Ho.va u o
mo.ve u n
NNH u c

oo.a mo.u Ho. we. um¢.u umm.n mo.u Am. mcflpoo
oeeonssm

oo.H we. no.1 oH.: ma.u mo.u mo. Ab. EOAunEHOucH
newcwpuuuwum

oo.H Ho. vm. new. nun. ma. Am.

>ufiam=o

oo.a vo. mo.n mo. ma.u Am.

suaveeem-eflmm

oo.H ma. mo. Ame. Aw.

zuwflfinoufiaoumcmo

oo.H cab. aha. .m.

cofiucmuom

oo.H ma. Am.

newcuooq

oo.a .Hv huwafina

m>fluacmoo

 

 

2: . E a: E E E E 3

HH >ozum “moanofinp> xenon moose occauoamuuooumucH

NH manna

79
Table 13

Regression Analysis Results on Retention: Study II

 

 

VARIABLE Beta R R2 R2 Change
Step 1:

Cognitive Ability (C) —0.88 .27 .07 .07°
Step 2:

Learning (L) -0.37 .73 .53 .46c
Step 3:

Pre-training Info (P) -1.37

Symbolic Coding (S) -3.71 .74 .54 .01
Step 4:

C X L 1.30

C X P 0.47

C X S 3.91

L X P 1.12

L X S 2.60

P X S -0.12 .76 .58 .04
Step 5:

C X L X P -0.44

C X L X S -2.94

C X P X S 0.18

L X P X S 0.12 .77 .60 .02
n=122

a = p<.10

b = p<.05

c = p<.01

Note: Final Standardized Beta weights were used

80
variables for retention was .60.

Exploratory hypotheses once again examined the large
amount of variance attributed to learning as being a
possible mediator for advance organizers. The correlation
between pre-training information and retention was once
again non-significant, thereby, disconfirming the idea of
mediation. In further examination of the correlation matrix
(see Table 12), the correlation between symbolic coding and
retention was noticeably large (-.42, p<.01) suggesting that
when learning points were provided, individuals retained
larger amounts of training material. This was tested using
learning as a mediator variable to see if its effects would
hold true after accounting for the effects of symbolic
coding on retention (James & Brett, 1984). To test for
mediator effects, a separate regression analysis was
conducted (see Table 14). Cognitive ability was covaried
out of retention prior to conducting the test for mediation.
In the first equation, symbolic coding was entered before
learning. Symbolic coding produced a significant change in
I? of .18, pg.01, when added to the equation after cognitive
ability, and learning produced a significant change in R213f
.28, p<.01 after cognitive ability and symbolic coding. In
the second equation, learning was entered before symbolic
coding. Learning produced a significant change in R?<of
.46, p<.01, after cognitive ability, and symbolic coding did
not produce a significant change in R2 after cognitive

ability and learning. These results support the mediated

81
Table 14

 

 

Regression Analysis Results of Test of Mediation
of Learning on Retention: Study II

VARIABLE Beta R R2 R2 Change
EQUATION 1

Step 1: 0.16 .27 .07 .07c
Cognitive Ability (C)

Step 2:

Symbolic Coding (S) 0.67 .50 .25 .18C
Step 3:

Learning (L) -0.02 .73 .53 .28c
EQUATION 2

Step 1:

Cognitive Ability (C) 0.16 .27 .07 .07C
Step 2:

Learning (L) 0.67 .73 .53 .46c
Step 3:

Symbolic Coding (S) -0.02 .73 .53 .00
n=122

a = p<.10
b = p<.05

c = p<.01

Note: Final Standardized

Beta weights were used

82
relationship of learning between the relationship of
symbolic coding and retention.

Generalizability. Hg stated that cognitive ability
would have a positive effect on the generalizability of
training information (see Table 15). This hypothesis was
confirmed when cognitive ability was entered into the
regression equation, producing a change in thof 03, ps.05.
Next, learning was entered into the regression equation but
did not produce a significant change in R2. 1% stated that
individuals who received an advance organizer would retain
more training information than individuals who received
background information and H7 stated that individuals who
generated their own learning points would retain more
information than individuals who received learning points.
Both were entered into the regression at the same time and
produced a non-significant change in R9, disconfirming both
hypotheses. After the main effects, all two-way
interactions, including exploratory analyses, among the four
variables were entered into the equation" EH predicted an
interaction between the conditions of pre-training
information and symbolic coding. Results found no
significant interaction between pre-training information and
symbolic coding, thereby disconfirming the hypothesis.
Exploratory analyses of the other interactions found that
two interactions resulted in significant (p<.10)
standardized weights. The first interaction was between

pre-training information and learning. Background

83
Table 15

Regression Analysis Results on Generalizability: Study II

 

 

VARIABLE Beta R R2 R2
Change

Step 1:

Cognitive Ability (C) -2.18 .18 .03 .03b

Step 2:

Learning (L) -2.53a .19 .04 .01

Step 3:

Pre-training Info (P) -5.53

Symbolic Coding (S) -2.61 .23 .05 .01

Step 4:

C X L 3.67a

C X P 3.93

C X S 2.97

L X P 5.52a

L X S 2.49

P X S 1.06 .38 .14 .098

Step 5:

C X L X P -4.19

C X L X S -2.90

C X P X S -0.20

L X P X S —0.49 .41 .17 .03

n=122

a = p<.10

b = p<.05

C = p<.01

Note: Final Standardized Beta weights were used

84
information had little effect on generalizability for
individuals with various levels of learning, whereas advance
organizers led to higher scores on generalizability for
individuals with higher levels of learning, and lower scores
on generalizability for individuals with lower levels of
learning. The second interaction was between cognitive
ability and learning. For individuals with lower levels of
cognitive ability, higher levels of learning led to lower
scores on generalizability, and lower levels of learning led
to higher scores on generalizability. For individuals with
higher levels of cognitive ability, higher levels of
learning led to higher scores on generalizability, and lower
levels of learning led to lower scores on generalizability.
Finally, all three-way interactions were entered into the
regression equation. No significant interactions resulted.
The total variance accounted for by all the variables for
generalizability was .17.

Self-Efficagy. H9 stated that cognitive ability would
have a positive effect on the trainee’s self-efficacy (see
Table 16). This hypothesis was not confirmed when entered
into the regression equation first, producing a non-
significant R9. Next, learning did not produce a
significant change in R?. 2H10 stated that individuals who
received an advance organizer would have more self-efficacy
than individuals who received background information and H11
stated that individuals who generated their own learning

points would have more self-efficacy than individuals who

85
Table 16

Regression Analysis Results on Self—Efficacy: Study II

 

 

VARIABLE Beta R R2 R2 Change
Step 1:

Cognitive Ability (C) 1.15 .12 .02 .02
Step 2:

Learning (L) 1.27 .13 .02 .00
Step 3:

Pre-training Info (P) 1.69

Symbolic Coding (S) 3.21 .15 .02 .00
Step 4:

C~X L -1.49

C X P -0.70

C X S -2.80

L X P -0.83

L X S -2.04

P X S -0.98 .23 .05 .03
Step 5

C X L X P -0.08

C X L X S 1.83

C X P X S —0.02

L X P X S 0.70 .24 .06 .01
n=122

a = p<.10

b = p<.05

C = p<.01

Note: Final Standardized Beta weights were used

86

received learning points. Both were entered into the
regression at the same time and produced a non-significant
change in R?, disconfirming both hypotheses. Next, all two-
way interactions, including exploratory analyses, among the
four variables were entered into the equation. H12
predicted an interaction between the conditions of pre-
training information and symbolic coding. Results found
that the interaction between pre-training information and
symbolic coding was not significant, thereby disconfirming
the hypothesis. Exploratory analyses for the other two-way
interactions also produced non-significant results.
Finally, all three—way interactions were entered into the
equation. No significant interactions were discovered. The
total variance accounted for by all the variables for self—
efficacy was .06.

Quality. H13 stated that cognitive ability would have
a positive effect on the quality of trainee’s generated
learning points (see Table 17). This hypothesis was not
confirmed when entered into the regression equation first,
producing a non-significant RF. Next, learning was entered
into the regression equation and produce a significant
change in R?<of .06, pg.10. H14 stated that individuals who
received an advance organizer would generate learning points
of higher quality than individuals who received background
information. This hypothesis was also disconfirmed when
entered into the regression equation, producing a non-

significant change in RP. Next, all two-way interactions,

87

Table 17

Regression Analysis Results on Quality: Study II

 

 

VARIABLE Beta R R2 R2 Change
Step 1:

Cognitive Ability (C) -0.16 .13 .02 .02
Step 2:

Learning (L) —0.00 .28 .08 .06a
Step 3:

Pre-training Info (P) -2.78 .29 .08 .00
Step 4:

C X L 0.26

C X P 2.06

L X P 2.22 .32 .10 .02
Step 5:

C X L X P —1.91 .33 .11 .01
n=63

a = p<.10

b = p<.05

C = p<.01

Note: Final Standardized Beta weights were used

88
including exploratory analyses, among the three variables
were entered into the equation. H15 predicted an
interaction between cognitive ability and training pre—
information. Results found that the interaction between
cognitive ability and pre-training information was not
significant, thereby disconfirming the hypothesis.
Exploratory analyses produced non-significant results for
the other two-way interactions. Finally, the three-way
interaction was entered into the equation. No significant
change in R?‘was produced. The total variance accounted.for

by all the variables for quality was .11.

DI SCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to examine the
effects of advance organizers and different methods of
symbolic coding on training outcomes. The discussion is
divided up into three sections. The first section provides
a summary of the findings of the experiment, both those that
were hypothesized and those that were exploratory in nature,
and the implications of the results. The second section
highlights some of the limitations of the study and the
impact of those limitations on the results. The third
section addresses future research directions.

Summapy and Implications of Major Findings

Cognitive ability. In support of the hypotheses, the
results found, with the exception of quality and self-
efficacy, that cognitive ability was a significant predictor
of retention and generalizability in study I and II, with
individuals having higher cognitive ability scoring higher
on these measures. This was expected as individuals with
higher cognitive ability should be able to educe relations
between concepts, and store and retrieve those relationships
in and from memory more efficiently than individuals with
lower cognitive ability. In addition, the relationship

between the concepts would be more readily and accurately

89

90
retrieved by high cognitive ability individuals than by low
cognitive ability individuals in situations such as the
generalizability measure. The relationship between
cognitive ability and quality of learning points generated
was positive, but not significant as expected in the
hypotheses.

The relationship between self-efficacy and cognitive
ability was negative in both studies and significant in
study I. These results could be due to individuals in the
study having made self-efficacy judgments about their skill
in assertive communication prior to receiving the training.
Also, one’s confidence in their ability to communicate
assertively with other individuals might be different than
cognitive ability. Individuals high on cognitive ability
might spend more time being introspective and analytical and
spend less time communicating assertively in social
situations. Cognitive ability might affect the retention
and generalizability of learned training material, but it
might not affect one’s perceptions of assertive
communication skill, perceptions that might have been
established before the training and might have been
unchanged by the training. Alternatively, low ability
individuals who undergo training may incorrectly assume that
since they went through the training, they were effective at
the skill of assertive communication. The simple exposure
to training might have been perceived as sufficient for

these individuals to attain the skill.

91

Pre—traininq information. The hypotheses concerning
advance organizers stated that advance organizers would lead
to greater amounts of retention and generalizability of
training material, as well as increased levels of self-
efficacy and quality of learning points generated.
Hypotheses concerning interactions with symbolic coding
postulated that advance organizers would be more beneficial
for retention, generalizability, and self-efficacy in cases
where individuals were provided with learning points. The
study failed to confirm all of the above hypotheses. In
addition, the interaction between cognitive ability and
advance organizers was explored in the study. It was
expected that individuals low in cognitive ability would
receive more benefits from the advance Organizers than
individuals high in cognitive ability, who should be able to
create organizing schemas on their own. These interactions
were also non—significant.

These results raise a number of questions for the use
and effectiveness of advance organizers. Several reasons
could be offered for their ineffectiveness in this setting.
First, the idea of, in this particular study, a jungle cat
improving the learning of training material might have been
unrealistic to the study participant. Even though the
study’s participants retained more advance organizer
concepts (Mean = 1.93, SD = 1.17) than background
information concepts (Mean = 1.23, SD = 1.02) after two

weeks (r=.30, p<.01), the thought of a jungle cat improving

92
performance was not believable and, therefore, it is
possible that the participants didn’t apply it to the
training material. Second, the advance organizer was
preceded by instructions describing its usefulness.
Individuals might have tried to apply the advance organizer
and found difficulty in matching the concepts to the
training material. This difficulty might have been
compounded if the individual had a lower level of cognitive
ability. Instead of matching the advance organizer to the
training material, the individual might have spent too much
time processing the advance organizer alone. Working memory
might have used too many of its resources keeping the
advance organizer in the working memory store as well as
using resources in wondering why a jungle cat was presented,
thereby, leaving fewer resources to process the new
information or combine it with the advance organizer.
Third, individuals might have had a well-formed notion as to
what assertive communication is, and these preconceived
concepts might not have been compatible with the advance
organizer. Therefore, when asked to recall assertive
communication information, the advance organizer, while
still stored in memory, might not have been connected or
retrieved with their preconceived notions. Fourth, even
though the study was a revised version of behavior modeling,
it still possessed a considerable amount of structure for
the individual. Research has shown that advance organizers

might not be as beneficial in training that is highly

93

structured (Mayer, 1979b). The training in this study might
have had too much structure with the symbolic coding
condition in which the participants had to actively process
the training material over multiple occasions, thereby,
limiting the advance organizer’s usefulness. Finally,
advance organizers have typically been used in education
settings with the acquisition of textual information. The
advance organizer and the material to be learned are both in
a textual format in these settings. In this experiment, the
advance organizer, like the educational setting, was
presented in a text format while the material to be learned
was in a skill-based format. While the direct reading text-
to-reading text link may produce positive effects in
educational settings, the incompatibility of the reading
text-to-skill acquisition link in a training setting, such
as this experiment, may produce difficulties due to learning
in different domains. Learning textual material might not
operationalize well into learning non—textual material, such
as assertive communication skills in this experiment.

Sympolic coding. The hypotheses concerning symbolic
coding stated that generating learning points would lead to
greater amounts of retention and generalizability of the
training material, as well as increased levels of self—
efficacy over that of providing individuals with learning
points. The results of the study failed to confirm the
above hypotheses. In terms of retention, learning points

provided had a significant effect on retention through a

94
mediator variable, learning. This was opposite to the
hypothesis of generated learning points leading to an
increased amount of retention. These results may have been
the outcome of the fact that the retention measure was based
upon the six learning points of assertive communication.
The retention measure directly corresponded to the learning
points for the individuals who received learning points,
whereas the individuals who generated their own learning
points might not have generated the exact six, or may have
generated the learning points in their own terms which could
have hindered their performance on the retention measure
that might have been more specific to the learning points
provided conditions.

Hypotheses concerning interactions with advance
organizers postulated that advance organizers would be more
beneficial for retention, generalizability, and self-
efficacy in cases where individuals received learning
points. These hypotheses were not confirmed by the study.
It was proposed that the advance organizer would set up an
accurate schema in which the training material could be
linked in order to benefit those individuals who had been
provided with learning points. The advance organizer, for
reasons cited above (e.g., unrealistic, previous perception,
working memory overload, etc.), was not effective in leading
to higher levels of the dependent variable. This
ineffectiveness prevented the generation of a facilitative

schema for the individuals in the learning points provided

95
conditions. Exploratory hypotheses examined the
relationship between symbolic coding and cognitive ability.
It was expected that individuals who were low in ability and
had to generate their own learning points would retain more
information, be better able to generalize, and have higher
levels of self—efficacy than low ability individuals who
were provided with learning points. Non-significant results
did not confirm these expectations.
Study Limitations

The limitations of this study are discussed in relation
to: (1) pre-training information, (2) training material, and
(3) dependent variable measures.

Pre-training information. In terms of this independent
variable, there are two possible limitations with their use
in this study. First, as stated above, the advance
organizer of the jungle cat might have been too unrealistic
for the individuals in the study. Even though they were
provided with ample description about the function of
advance organizers, the jungle cat story might have been
difficult to apply to the learning of the training material.
Perhaps a less novel advance organizer that was more in line
with their expectations would have been more useful. For
instance, a human example might have been perceived as more
realistic to the participants and could have been connected
to assertive communication information more easily than a
jungle cat example. Second, even though the background

information provided no helpful information in terms of the

96
content of the training material, the content might have
been motivating to the participants of the study. By
describing the definition of assertive communication along
with its various uses, the participants might have been more
motivated to learn the training material. Third, as stated
above, using textual material to improve the retention of
textual material might be beneficial in an educational
setting, but its effects might not be as beneficial when
learning takes place in a different domain, such as the
acquisition of assertive communication skill in this
experiment.

Training material. Another possible limitation was the
use of assertive communication skills as the training
material. Individual participants could have already had
well-learned schemas concerning these skills, and new
information in training might not have been as readily
incorporated/connected to these structures. Using training
material that was more unfamiliar to the participants or
covarying out what knowledge they already possessed might
have produced different results.

Dependent variable measures. In particular, the
retention and the generalizability measures could have been
a possible limitation in this study. The strong effect of
the learning points provided condition on retention was due,
in the most part, to the fact that the measure was based
upon the six learning points of assertive communication.

This could also have lead to the retention measure’s

97

reliability being lower (alpha = .61) than desired. A
retention measure that did not favor the learning points
provided condition as much as this measure could have been
more beneficial. Half the participants in study II received
the learning points, while the other half generated their
own. Creating a retention measure that did not favor the
learning points provided conditions would be extremely
difficult. A retention measure comparing participants’
generated learning points to the ones they retained might
get at this, but would require much effort in generating an
individualized retention measure for each trainee. In
addition, it would not guarantee that the individuals in the
learning points generated condition would retain the correct
information. The generalizability measure also had poorer
reliability than desired with an interrater reliability of
the mean rating of r = .64. With smaller effect sizes than
the retention measure, the unreliability in the dependent
variable reduces statistical power. Giving more than one
scenario or providing more training to the raters might have
improved this situation.
pipections for Future Research

Future research in this area could take several
directions. First, the operationalization of advance
organizers needs further examination. Using textual
materials for an advance organizer might be beneficial when
learning textual information, but when it is used in

learning skills, a different domain, problems can arise in

98
the transfer of information (Bassok, 1990; Bassok & Holyoak,
1989). Also, the processing required for learning textual
information is different than the processing required to
learn a skill, thereby, weakening the transfer effect
(Brooks, 1987). If the two were processed the same way, the
processing of the second could serve as a stronger cue for
the retrieval of information. These design problems need to
be further explored and refined. For example, a skill-based
advance organizer, rather than a textual one, might be more
beneficial in training because trainees would be using the
same domain, skill-to-skill, instead of a different one,
text-to—skill. Until these operationalization issues
involving advance organizers are further explored, one might
postpone the use of advance organizers in the practice of
skill-based training.

Second, the use of these cognitive mechanisms in
structured training programs needs to be explored. Prior
research has stated that advance organizers are not as
effective when training is highly structured (Mayer, 1979b),
such as behavior modeling. Future research needs to examine
how these cognitive mechanisms operate in training programs
that are already highly structured. Knowledge structures
concerning the training material could be assessed prior to
training. After training, the changes in these knowledge
structures due to advance organizers or symbolic coding in
training could then be assessed to see if advanCe organizers

or different methods of symbolic coding produced changes.

99

Finally, the interactive effects of cognitive ability
with advance organizers need to be further explored.
Results of previous research on advance organizers and
cognitive ability are mixed (Luiten et al, 1980; Mayer,
1979b), and the results of this experiment, while not
significant, tended to suggest that advance organizers might
be more useful for individuals with higher levels of
cognitive ability. Further research on the effects of these
mechanisms on individuals with different levels of cognitive
ability is needed, particularly if issues regarding the
operationalization of advance organizers are further

examined.

 

 

APPENDICES

100

APPENDIX A

Advance Organizer: Linkage to Learning Points

Learning Points

Nonverbal:

Self-Disclosure:

Broken Record:

Fogging:

Negative Assertion:

Check for Closure:

Advance Organizer Component

Eyes never leave its target; calm,
steadfast manner

Doesn’t invent reasons; honest; survival

Persistent in its tracking; waits
patiently and remains patient

Avoids obstacles, rocks, trees while
tracking; doesn’t get angry

Instinctual; doesn’t apologize for
actions

Attacks jugular to guarantee the death
of its prey

101

Advance Organizer: Paragraph

The jungle cat on the hunt is a quite a sight to
behold. While ferocious, the jungle cat does not apologize
for what it does. Hunting prey is instinctual and necessary
for its survival as well as the survival of its kin, so it
doesn’t need to invent reasons why it hunts other animals.
When the cat spots its prey, its eyes never leaves the
target in a calm, steadfast manner. While tracking, many
obstacles get in its way in terms of rocks and trees, but
the cat waits patiently and remains persistent in its
following. The jungle cat shows no anger at the obstacles,
but continues to be persistent in its watch. At the attack,
the cat goes for the jugular to ensure the death of its prey
and to remove any doubts of what is going on. Both the
predator and prey understand.

102

APPENDIX B

Background Information Paragraph

Definition-wise, the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines
”assert" as to vindicate a claim to (rights); insist upon
one’s rights. Assertive communication techniques are a
direct outgrowth of working with normal human beings, trying
to teach them something about how to cope effectively with
the conflicts and problems they have in living with each
other. Not only will these techniques prove beneficial in
managing conflict, but they can also give people a better
understanding of what often happens when they feel at a loss
in coping with one another. These techniques have been
taught in a variety of settings including universities,
outpatient clinics, training programs, and prisons to name a
few.

103

APPENDIX C

Wonderlic Personnel Test

PERSONNEL TEST

(Please Print)

READ THIS PAGE CAREFULLY. DO EXACTLY AS YOU ARE TOLD.
DO NOT TURN OVER THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE INSTRUCI'ED TO DO SO.

PROBLEMS MUST BE WORKED WITHOUT THE AID OF A CALCULATOR
OR OTHER PROBLEM-SOLVING DEVICE.

This is a test of problem solving ability. it contains various types of questions. Below is a sample question
correctly filled in:

REAP is the opposite of
I obtain. 2 cheer, 3 continue, 4 exist. 5 say; ...................................................................... [5.1

The correct answer is ‘sow. "(It is helpful to underline the correct word.) The correct word is
numbered 5. Then write the figure Sin the brackets WW.

Answer the next sample question yourself.
Paper sells for 23 cents per pad. Whatwill4pads cost? ............................................................. [—1
The correct answer is 92 ¢. There is nothing to underline so just place ‘92¢" in the brackets. ‘ I
Here is another example:

MINER MINOR — Do these words
1 have similar meanings, 2 have contradictory meanings, 3 mean neither the same nor opposite? [—1

 

 

 

 

The correct answer is “mean neither the same nor opposite” which is number 3, so all you have to do is

place a figure ‘3” in the brackets W.

When the answer to a question is a letter or a number, put the letter or number in the brackets. All letters
should be printed.

This test contains 50 questions. It is unlikely that you will finish all of them. but do your best. After the
examiner tells you to begin. you will be given exactly 12 minutes to work as many as you can. Do not go so
fast that you make mistakes. since you must try to get as many right as possible. The questions become
increasingly difficult. so do not skip about. Do not spend too much time on any one problem. The examiner
will not answer any questions after the test begins.

Now. lay down your pencil and wait for the examiner to tell you to begin!

 

Do not turn the page until you are told to do so.

 

 

 

104

 

 

2. Qumnberhthe

Thelestmonthoftheyearis

 

lJanuary.2March.3July.4Dec¢nber.50ctober

saiesbanfltdmshoulddutmenberbe?
100 97 94 ? 88 8582

 

3. Moetofdneitmbelmvresembleeadtomer. Whichoneisieestlketheod’ters?
December

SP!”

P

. 1o.
11.
12.
13.

14.

16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.
23.

24.
25.

1Jenuary. 2m SWM. 40dober. S

 

Whichflguecanbemadeftomlhesepem?

 

eeee. <4}

hhfoflowingsetofwordsuhiohwosdisclflmlromtheothen?
lMethodist. ZEaster. 3km 4Catholc. SQueker

 

lookaltherowofmmbenbelokahatmsnbcshouldoomenott?
8 4 2 1 1/2 1/4 ?

 

manhunnmmmlslhelhelone:1TM2FIBQ3MWTIIMBHW

 

mummmahmmanmmmehmwmm
Am‘sarnveled 16mllesln30nmflowmsnymflesanhowwluwehq?

 

Whichwdbelowlsreietedtosmelasdewbtobeflt?

 

1M2stink3odor.4noee.5dean
Adeninbwghtsorne‘iiV‘sforSZfiOQHesoldmanforflAOOmumSSOcneech‘lZMI-iowmany
‘I'LV.’swerelrwohaed?

Annutinflrst2mnmmisthefenlone:
lime.2faise.3notcenah?
mwmmmnmmmmmmmm

 

 

 

 

AmmmfthflMNWmMmemlmulOM? ..............
REMOTEistheoppodteof '

Induced. 2neer. 3h. 4km. Scoot
Larnndropsselat3fot10omui-Iownuchwllllfldomooet? _
hhMmdehkhwdbdflmfromtheodUs?

1m2bend.3brood.4boy.5ctoud
AbwbémoflwhbdachmuouwmmeboybIOmouwwbetheegeofhlssbter?

AmhfoWMmMMmhammMmhmmhhum
esthemtothisproblem.
is world The mad

lmkatdaemofmsnbessbeiow.Whetmnbershouldoormnctt?
81 27 9 3 1 1/3 ?

AsemthetdtefirstZsatmtsareu-uistheknlstatmt:
1M2fske.3notcertaln?
JohnisthesemeegeuSany.SeflybyomgermanBllJohanhnBil

Areotanguiarbmcompletelyfiiledmoldsmowicfeetoflhne.lithebinis 10feetiongsnd10feetwlde.
howdeepisit?

Assume that the first 2 statements are tree. is the final statement:
1 true. 2 false. 3 not certain?
All red-headed boys are mischievou. Charles is red-headed. He is mischievous.

Awatchiostlminute 18 months-139th”. Howmnysecondsdiditiose perday?

Two of the following proverbs have the same meaning. Which ones are they?
1. Menyegoodcowhethebedcalf.
2. Liltefatheniikeson.
3. Amusisesgoodasemlie.
4. Ameniskno-mbythecompanyhekeeps.
S. Theyareseedsouofzhesemeboud.
Two mencaught36 fisb.:XcaughtS-.imesasmanyesY. Howrnenyflshdlchatch?

Assume the first 2 statements are :rue. .sthe final one: 1 true. 2 false. 3 not certain?
All Quakers are pec: fists. Some of the mole in this room are Quakers. Some of the people
in this room are pacfis: s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

l_l
l__l
l.._l

 

 

105

 

 

26.

27.

37.

83

41.

42.

43.

45.

47.

49.

50.

. WireislScentsafoot. Howmanyfeetcanyoubuyforadollar?
. lf21/2yardsolfabnccos1520.whatwiil31/2yardsoost?

. hthefofloudngutofwordswhiohwdisdlffermtfromtheodiers?

. AskirtrequiresZ1/4yardscfmater‘aLI-iowmanycanbecutfrom45yards?
. AsametheflrstZstaterneritsaretr-aeistheilnalone:ltme.2false.3notcertain?

. TmofmefoflowhgpmvcbshawdrruhrmemWNchonesaremey?

. meanysmiareyardsarethereinafloorwhichis9feetlongby21feetwlde?

One number in the follomng series does not fit in with the pattern set by the others.
What should that number be? 1/2 1/4 1/6 1/8 1/9 1/12

Are the meanings of the following sentences: 1 similar. 2 contradictory. 3 neither similar nor contradictory?
Every pumpkin is knoim by its stem. Like father. like son.

 

 

 

AsnnnethattheiirstZstatementsareuuelsthefinaistatement: 1M2false.3notcertain?Mostbuslness
men are progressive. Most business men are Republicans. Some progressive people are Republicans. .............

 

lfaculty.2fleet.3flock.4friend.5force 1

 

 

Bert greeted Alice. Alice greeted Lou. Bert did not greet Lou.

 

. AdockwasexactiyondmeatnoononMonday.AtZP.M.onWednesday.itwas25secondsslow.Atd\at

 

same rate. how much did it lose in 1/2 hour?

. Arethemeaningsofthe foilowingsemences: lslmiiar.2oonuadlctory.3neitlwslmllarnoroonuadlctory?

Fneridsagrubeaatadinarioanendsareonesuthobodles.

 

. AsfleofuefmlgthSOMThemagedaflybeeiconsunpdonofafamnybl2/3beHowlongwflld1is

beeflastthem?

Nehmflsofhfohflgmlmr.2mradcm.3wmmomm?
AnewbmommepsdunOldshoesareeaslest.

 

 

. Otubasebanteambst9gamudibseasom1hisw3/Sofaild1qplayed.Howmanygamesdiddteypiay

thlsseason?

 

 

1. Youcarmotrnakeasiikpuseoteofam'seu.
2. Hethatstealsanegwlllstealmoe.
' 3. Arolngstonegathersnomoes.
4. Youcannotdamageawreckedsflp.
5. hlsdieimpossblethathappesu.

 

Arethemeaningsofthe foflmfingsmmwlshrmar.2cmuadlaory.3ndflmshnflarmrooncadao.ry?
AdupoffdieoldblockAbeggar'ssonstrmlikeapeer.

ThreeofthefoilowingSpartscanbehttedtogetherinwchawaytomakeau'iangle.

Whlch3arethey? '
A til 2] B [E
1 similar. 2 contradictory. 3 neitherslmilar norcontradictory?

Are the meanings of the following sentences:
No honest man ever repented for his honesty. Honesty is praised and stem.

 

 

 

 

. Asoldiershootingatatargethitsitd-O‘lboftl'ietlme.Howmanythnesrmmheshootinordertoregisterloomts? .

in the following set of words. which word is different from the others?
1 colony. 2 companion. 3 covey. 4 crew. 5 constellation

For $2.40 a grocer buys a case of fruit which contains 12 dozen. She knows that two dozen will spoil before she
sells them. At what price per dozen must she sell the good ones to gain i/ 3 of the whole cost? ......................

Asswnethatthe first2staternentsare :rue.isthefinaione: 1true.2false.3notcertain:Greatmenare
ridiculed. lam ridiculed. i am a great man.

 

 

. Three men form a partnership and agree to divide the profits equally. X invests $4.500. Y imests $3500 and

Z invests 52000. if the profits are 51500. how much less does X receive than if the profits were divided in
proportion to the amount invested?
Are the meanings of the following sentences: 1 similar. 2 contradictory. 3 neither similar nor contradictory?
Where there's a will there is a way. The gods sell everything for labor. -- - -
in printing an article of 30.000 words. a printer decides to use two sizes of type. Using the larger type. a
printed page contains 1200 words. L'strzg the smaller type. a page contains 1500 worth. The article is
allotted 22 pages in a magazine. How many pages must be in the smaller type? ................... -

 

 

 

 

l_l
l_..l

 

 

 

106

APPENDIX D

Learning & Retention Scale

You are returning an item to a store because you do not
want it. The clerk asks you why you do not want it.
You should...

Come up with a reason to speed up the process.
Tell the clerk you just don't want it.

Ask to see the clerk’s superior.

Keep the item to avoid an agonizing encounter.

OJOU‘DJ

Which of the following statement is most in line with
assertive communication?

a. You should try to keep goodwill when dealing with

others.

b. When others make logical statements you should
agree with them.

c. You have the right to your own behavior, thoughts,
and emotions.

d. You should always offer reasons for what you want.

Which of the following nonverbals are the most
important for effective assertive communication.

a Domineering stance.
b. Steady eye contact.
c Changing voice tone.
d. Expressive hand motions.

In your communication with a salesperson, the
salesperson tells you that you are being illogical in
your request for a replacement part. How would you
respond?

a. “Listen, don't give me any slack, just give me the
part."

b. "I am not being illogical, and I want my part."

c. “How do you think I am being illogical?"

d. “That may be so, but I still want my part."

10.

107

You have been rightly accused of making an error at
work. How should you respond to the person.

a. Give reasons why you made the error.

b. Admit to making the error.

c. Apologize for making the error and promise to make
it up for them.

d. Deny the error.

When dealing with a person who is sidetracking your
requests, it is best that you...

a Give more reasons.

b. Use a more.official approach.
c Continue to be persistent.

d Work out a compromise.

Which of the following can be detrimental to assertive
communication.

Self-disclosure of information.

A calm, repetitive voice.
Accepting manipulative statements.
Refusing to accept a compromdse.

0400‘”

You are trying to get a refund from the sales clerk,
when he tells you that there is nothing he can do.
What would be the best way to respond?

Continue to be persistent in your request to him.
Insist on getting your refund.

Ask him who can help you and ask to see them.
Change your voice tone to get him to give you a
refund.

QaOU‘fll

When ending a conversation, it is important that...

a. You make sure you have obtained a two-way
understanding of the outcome.

b. You make sure you have obtained what you
originally wanted.

c. You make sure you have not hurt their feelings.

d. You make sure you have avoided all manipulations.

When returning a defective shoe, the store manager
tells you that the factory that manufactures the shoe,
won't take it back the shoe. What would you say?

a. "How do I get in contact with the factory to get a
new shoe.“

b. “Can’t you just trade shoes with me here?“

c. “What am I supposed to do with this shoe?"

d. “I bought the shoe from you, and I want a refund."

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

108

Even if you have communicated assertively, it could
prove unsuccessful if you do not...

a. Continue to be persistent in your dealings.

b. Dominate the proceedings of the conversation.

c. Make sure the other person understands the
decision.

d. Compromise at the end of the conversation.

When asked to provide a reason for returning an auto
part, which of the following responses would be most
appropriate.

a. Invent reasons that the salesperson will accept.

b. Be honest about your feelings.

c Tell the salesperson that it is not any of their
business.

d. Ask to see their manager.

When assertively communicating with someone who is
trying to manipulate you, it is important to...

Use softer statements to win them over.

Use an authoritarian style to communicate.
Come up with new reasons to persuade them.
Continue to be persistent in your request.

QaOU'i-D

When a person tries to manipulate you in your
conversation by attacking and insulting you verbally,
you should...

a. Admit there may be some truth in their statement,
but it doesn't change your mind.

b. Inform them that they are getting off the topic.

c Try to manipulate them back into the original
conversation.

d. Through voice inflection, take back the control of

the conversation.

If your feelings get exposed in a conversation, you
should make sure that you...

Apologize for them, but continue to be persistent.
Retaliate for losing control of your emotions.

Try to find out what the other person's feelings
are.

d. Recognize them, instead of denying them.

OU‘DJ

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

109

If you were watching an individual assertively
communicate, which of the following aspects would be
associated with effective nonverbal skills.

a A changing voice tone.

b A steady voice tone

c. An aggressive voice tone.
d An official voice tone.

The use of ”I“ statements in assertive communication
can be...

Detrimental because they are too revealing.
Detrimental because they avoid the topic.

Positive because they are honest feelings.
Positive because they lighten up the conversation.

CLOUD)

When returning an item, the salesperson insults you
saying that you must be stupid to want to bring back
the part. How would you respond?

a "What do you mean when you say I'm being stupid?“

b. "Maybe you’re right, but I still want to return
the part."

c. "Let's stop with the name-calling, and give me the
refund.“

d. "I don't care what you think, I want my money
back.“

Which of the following is a successful technique in
dealing with manipulative statements?

a. Critical attack
b. Sarcasm

c. Aggressiveness
d. Acknowledgement

To ensure that you have communicated assertively, you
should always...

a. Continue to emphasize your point to the other
person.

b. Check for closure with the other person.

c. Stop the conversation when you have won the person
over.

d. Draw up a written contract with the other person.

110

APPENDIX E

Reproduction Role-Play Scoring Scale

Please rate each subject on the accuracy of reproduction of
each of the 12 statements. Also, please observe the

subject's overall nonverbal behavior (i.e., eye-contact and
voice consistency) and record an overall rating at the end.

Scale is:
7 = Outstanding reproduction (90% of actual words &
sequencing)
= Good reproduction (75%)
4 = Average reproduction (50%)
= Poor reproduction (25%)
1 = Very poor reproduction (Less than 10% or no
reproduction)
Subject: Good Morning
Matt: Good Morning
(1) Hi, my name’s . I brought my car in a

couple of days ago to get my brakes worked on
under warranty and when I got my car back the
brakes squealed really loudly and I really don't
want brakes on my car that squeal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Matt: Well, I'm sorry but there’s really
nothing we can do about that. Those are standard
brakes and quite often they squeal that way.

(2) Well, I am.sure they might squeal that way from
time to time, but when I brought my car in here
the brakes didn’t squeal and when I got it back
they did. I really don't want brakes on my car
that squeal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Matt: As I said before, really there is nothing we can
do about that.

(3) Could you tell me the name of your service manager
and where I might find him?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Matt:

Matt:
this?

(5)

Matt:

(6)

Matt:

(7)

Matt:

111
I am the service manager here, my name is

Well, , I don't know much about brakes or
why they might squeal but all I know is when I
brought my car in here everything was fine in
terms of the squealing and when I get it back
they’re squealing and I don’t want brakes on my
car that squeal they way

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Well, , do you have a work receipt on

Yes I do, right here (hands over work receipt)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(Reading work receipt) It says here this work was
done last Wednesday. Why didn't you bring this to
our attention last Wednesday or Thursday.

Maybe I should have, but my car is here now and I
want brakes on my car that don't squeal.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

It also says that the brake cylinders on all four
wheels were replaced. Here's what probably
happened. The mechanic probably found a bit of
brake fluid leaking on the brake shoes and decided
to replace all four cylinders. It's something he
didn’t have to do, but something we like to do to
insure our customers driving safety. And by the
way, you weren't charged for it.

Well, I am sure what you are saying is true. But
when I brought my car in here the brakes didn’t
squeal. It’s that simple. When I got my car back
they did squeal. I don’t want my car in that
condition. '

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

As I mentioned, these are replacement brakes that
the factory provides us. They are much harder and
better than the original brakes. Consequently,
they might squeal a little bit.

(8)

Matt:

(9)

Matt:

(10)

Matt:

(11)

Matt:

(12)

Matt:

Subject:

112

I really don’t doubt that you might have trouble
from time to time with your factory replacements,
but I don't see that as my problem. What I
brought my car in here the brakes didn’t squeal
and now they do. I want brakes on my car that
don’t squeal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

But these are brand new brakes that we installed
for nothing. We didn't have to do it, we did it
as a courtesy to you. We just like to take care
of our customers driving safely.

Well, that is very courteous on your part. But,
like I said before, I don't want my car having
squealy brakes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C’mon! If we put the original brakes back on your
car they won’t last half as long as the new brakes
we just installed. Does that make any sense?

I can understand your feelings, and maybe I'm not
making any sense -- maybe this isn't a rational
decision -- these brakes might last longer but I
don’t want them on my car if they are going to
squeal that way.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Can you leave the car with me this afternoon?

If I do will you fix my brakes?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

If you leave the car with me, I'll make sure the
brakes get fixed.

When can I get my car back?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
We’ll have your car by 10:00 tomorrow morning.

That would be great. I really appreciate your
help.

113

Nonverbal Reproduction

Accuracy Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 = Outstanding (Maintained steady eye contact & voice
throughout)
= Good (Only a few minor exceptions of
ineffective non—verbals)
4 = Average (A mix of effective and ineffective non—
verbals)
= Poor (Few cases of effective non-verbals)
1 = Very Poor (Ineffective non-verbals throughout)

Overall Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

114

APPENDIX F

Generalization Role-Play
Instructions:

You work in a fast—food restaurant (i.e., McDonalds, Burger
King, etc.) and have the next two days off according to this
week's schedule. The next two days are week days and you
have made only tentative plans. However, you do not feel
you should work the next two days even though your plans are
(only tentative. You are to refuse to work as the boss
requests in the most effective assertive manner. The
trainer will role—play your boss.

115

Generalization Role—Play Scoring Scale

Please rate each of the subject’s eight responses with
respect to his/her use of the appropriate assertive skills.
Behavioral anchors for a level 7, 4, & 1 responses are
provided below each of the experimenter's verbal cues.

Boss:

(1)

BOSS:

(2)

BOSS:

(3)

SCENARIO

Hi (subject name). Greg is sick and I need
someone to cover for me tomorrow morning.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Oh, I am sorry to hear Greg is sick, but I was
scheduled off the next two days and won't be
available tomorrow (or have tentative plans).

Uh, no I really can't help you out this time, I
have plans.

I am sorry but I can’t work, this is Greg’s and
your problem.

Why is it something important like a doctor’s
appointment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

No, it’s nothing serious. I just have some
tentative plans (Ok to say what they are i.e. with
friends or whatever), was scheduled off, and won’t
be available tomorrow.

No, but it wouldn’t be right for me to reschedule
my plans. I can’t come in.

I’m sorry. But like I said, I can't do it. Or,
yes it is something like a Doctor's appointment.
Or something where they diffuse the reason and
don't start with I.

Can’t you call it off. I really need you
tomorrow.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am sure you do. But I was scheduled off, made
some plans and just will be unavailable tomorrow.

No, I made plans and cannot come in (perhaps gives
different reason)

BOSS:

(4)

BOSS:

(5)

Boss:

(6)

116

No. I'm sorry but that’s your problem and Greg’s
problem. '

Wow, you are leaving me in a bad situation
(subject name).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

That may be. I can see you're in a bad situation.
But I was scheduled off, made plans and won't be
available tomorrow.

No, I can’t come in but the situation isn't that
bad anyway. Couldn't you get (other name) to work
or perhaps talk to Greg -- he is your problem.

I'm sorry you are in this spot. But it is not me
that is leaving you in this situation and I won’t
come in because (any new reason).

Well, that's pretty unreliable (subject name), who
am I going to get to work?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It may seem unreliable to you and I am not sure
who you might get to work. But I was scheduled
off and since I have made plans I just won’t be
available tomorrow.

Who have you tried? There are a lot of people who
might be able to work if you call them.

It is not unreliable -- it's not my problem.

I don’t understand the deal this time (subject
name), you have always been available before.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

That’s true, I have been. But this time I made
plans during my scheduled off time and I won't be
available tomorrow.

I know and I think it is someone else’s turn.

I'm sorry but even though I have always covered
for you in the past I can’t this time (gives new
reason or adds to old). This time pick on
somebody else.

BOSS:

(7)

BOSS:

(8)

BOSS:

117

If you help me out, I could see that you get
Saturday and Sunday off.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am sure you would and I appreciate the offer.
But the plans I have made are for the days I was
originally scheduled off (including tomorrow) and
I won’t be available then.

But my plans are not for those days -- they are
for tomorrow and the next day, when I was
scheduled off.

Sorry, but I can't do it.

You would? So I could have the weekend if I come
in? Well in that case...

Greg may be sick for a while, do you think you
could help me out in the days after tomorrow.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

That’s very possible. I certainly want to help
out when I can and I have always tried to fill in
the past. It just happened that this time I had
already made plans and couldn’t be available. So
if Greg is going to be sick for awhile just let me
know and I will try to help out by covering his
shifts when I can. Just let me know as soon as
you know the situation.

Well, maybe. It depends on what I have going at
that time.

I doubt it. I cover up for people too much. This
is Greg’s problem.

Well, OK, I guess I will just have to get somebody
else this time.

 

118

Nonverbal Reproduction

Accuracy Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 = Outstanding (Maintained steady eye contact & voice
throughout)
= Good (Only a few minor exceptions of
ineffective non-verbals)
4 = Average (A mix of effective and ineffective non-
verbals)
= Poor (Few cases of effective non-verbals)
1 = Very Poor (Ineffective non-verbals throughout)

Overall Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

119

APPENDIX G

Assertive Communication Self—Efficacy Items

Confidence on a scale of 1-9 (not at all - totally)

1.

I am capable of looking directly at the focal person
and speaking clearly and to the point.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I am capable of being honest about my feelings and
needs and accepting responsibility for them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I am capable of being persistent in a request or
answer.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I am capable of accepting sidetracking statements
without changing my feelings.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I am capable of acknowledging and accepting my feelings
and faults without apologizing for them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I am able to check for closure and two-way
understanding of outcome or compromise.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Overall ranking:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

120

APPENDIX H

Quality of Learning Points Scale

Please rate each subject on the accuracy of reproduction of
each of the six learning points. First, match the learning
points generated by the subject with the provided learning
points that are most similar in content. Second, rate the
accuracy of the learning points in terms of quality and
content to the its match. Finally, record an overall rating
of the quality at the end.

Scale is:

7 = Outstanding quality (90% of the concept)
= Good quality (75%)

4 = Average quality (50%)
= Poor quality (25%)

1 = Very poor quality (Less than 10% or none of the

concept)

1. Look directly at the focal person with head erect.
Speak clearly and to the point with no dramatic changes
in voice tone.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Use Self-Disclosure (be honest about your feelings and
needs and accept responsibility for them. Use I'I"
statements). Avoid fabricating “better“ reasons for
your feelings.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Use Broken Record (be persistent in a request or answer
with calm repetition). Avoid softening statements,
qualifiers, temper, or trying to give more persuasive
reasons for your feelings.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Use Pegging (acceptance of manipulative or sidetracking

statements by calmly acknowledging the probability that
there may be some truth in the statement but this does
not change your feelings). Avoid sarcasm, aggression,
critical attacks.

1 2 3 4 S 6 7

121
5. Use negative Assertion (acknowledge and accept your
feelings and faults without apologizing for them).
Avoid angry denials, retaliation, name calling.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Check for Closure and two—way understanding of outcome
or compromise.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Overall Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

Model

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

122

APPENDIX I

Positive Dealer Problem Script

Scott

Good Morning
Good Morning

Hi, my name’s Scott Snell. I brought my car in a
couple of days ago to get my brakes worked on
under warranty and when I got my car back the
brakes squealed really loudly and I really don't
want brakes on my car that squeal.

Well, I'm.sorry Mr. Snell but there's really
nothing we can do about that. Those are standard
brakes and quite often they squeal that way.

Well, I am sure they might squeal that way from
time to time, but when I brought my car in here
the brakes didn't squeal and when I got it back
they did. I really don't want brakes on my car
that squeal.

As I said before, really there is nothing we can
do about that.

Could you tell me the name of your service manager
and where I might find him?

I am the service manager here, my name is Ty.

Well, Ty, I don't know much about brakes or why
they might squeal but all I know is when I brought
my car in here everything was fine in terms of the
squealing and when I get it back they're squealing
and I don’t want brakes on my car that squeal that
way.

Well, Mr. Snell, do you have a work receipt on
this?

Yes I do, right here (hands over work receipt)
(Reading work receipt) It says here this work was

done last Wednesday. Why didn't you bring this to
our attention last Wednesday or Thursday.

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

123

Maybe I should have, but my car is here now and I
want brakes on my car that don’t squeal.

It also says that the brake cylinders on all four
wheels were replaced. Here’s what probably
happened. The mechanic probably found a bit of
brake fluid leaking on the brake shoes and decided
to replace all four cylinders. It's something he
didn’t have to do, but something we like to do to
insure our customers driving safety. And by the
way, you weren’t charged for it.

Well, I am sure what you are saying is true. But
when I brought my car in here the brakes didn't
squeal. It's that simple. When I got my car back
they did squeal. I don’t want my car in that
condition.

As I mentioned, these are replacement brakes that
the factory provides us. They are much harder and
better than the original brakes. Consequently,
they might squeal a little bit. '

I really don't doubt that you might have trouble
from time to time with your factory replacements,
but I don't see that as my problem. When I
brought my car in here the brakes didn't squeal
and now they do. I want brakes on my car that
don’t squeal.

But these are brand new brakes that we installed
for nothing. We didn't have to do it, we did it
as a courtesy to you. We just like to take care
of our customers driving safely.

Well, that is very courteous on your part. But,
like I said before, I don't want my car having
squealy brakes.

C'mon! If we put the original brakes back on your
car they won't last half as long as the new brakes
we just installed. Does that make any sense?

I can understand your feelings, and maybe I'm.not
making any sense -- maybe this isn't a rational
decision -- these brakes might last longer but I
don’t want them on my car if they are going to
squeal that way.

Can you leave the car with me this afternoon?

If I do will you fix my brakes?

124

Ty: If you leave the car with me, I'll make sure the
brakes get fixed.

Scott: When can I get my car back?

Ty: We’ll have your car by 10:00 tomorrow morning.

Scott: That would be great. I really appreciate your

help.

Scott

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

125

APPENDIX J

Negative Dealer Problem Script

Model

I had my brakes fixed under warranty here a few
days ago and now the brakes squeal loudly.

There’s nothing we can do about that. Those are
the standard brakes and they often squeal that
way.

I don't think all standard brakes squeal -- I've
had them before, and so have friends who had them
and they didn’t squeal. It’s embarrassing to have
loud squealing brakes.

Sir, we really can't do anything about that.

You'd better or I will be talking to your service
manager.

I am the service manager, and my name is Ty.

Well, Ty, I am sorry and don’t want to create a
big hassle but I know that things don't always get
done perfectly in these garages and I think
something is up with the way my brakes squeal now.
They didn’t squeak when I brought them.in, you
know.

Do you have the work receipt?

Yes, I do and the lazy mechanic that worked on it
is standing right over there. I took him two days
over schedule, you know.

It says the repair was done last Wednesday
morning. You should have brought it back either
Wednesday or Thursday. We can’t be sure the
repairs are the cause of the squealing brakes.

Look, I am sorry I didn't have time to bring it in
right away. I probably should have but I had
other commitments at my sales office that took
priority. Isn't there some way I can get my
brakes fixed so they don't squeal? My boss says I
should do something about it. .

O

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

Scott:

126

It also says on the work sheet that the brake
cylinders were leaking and were fixed. So here’s
what happened. The mechanic probably found a
little brake fluid on the brake shoes and decided
to replace them to give you better brake
performance. He didn’t have to, but we like to
make sure each car we repair is completely safe
for our customers. By the way, we didn't charge
you for it.

Well, I don't know what really happened, but my
brakes squeal now and its loud and irritating, you
should hear them.

Well, as I mentioned, you have the standard
replacement brakes that the factory provides us.
Believe me they are harder and last longer than
the original ones on your car. Consequently, they
may squeal a little.

Would you like squealing brakes on your car. My
girlfriend hates it.

These are brand new brakes that we installed on
your car for nothing. We didn’t have to do that,
we did it as a courtesy to you. We just like to
take care of our customer’s driving safety.

Maybe you're right, but what about putting my old
brakes back on, they didn't squeal.

Come on buddy, if we put the original brakes back
on your car they won't last half as long as the
new ones. That doesn't make sense.

Don't give me that, nothing in this situation
makes any sense — new brakes squealing more than
old brakes. I think the mistake I made was
bringing it here.

In the long run, you'll thank us -- now is there
anything else we can help you with.

127

APPENDIX K

Learning Points

Look directly at the focal person with head erect.
Speak clearly and to the point with no dramatic changes
in voice tone.

Use Self-Disclosure (be honest about your feelings and
needs and accept responsibility for them. Use “I“
statements). Avoid fabricating “better“ reasons for
your feelings.

Use Broken Record (be persistent in a request or answer
with calm repetition). Avoid softening statements,
qualifiers, temper, or trying to give more persuasive
reasons for your feelings.

Use Pegging (acceptance of manipulative or sidetracking
statements by calmly acknowledging the probability that
there may be some truth in the statement but this does
not change your feelings). Avoid sarcasm, aggression,
critical attacks.

Use negative Assertion (acknowledge and accept your
feelings and faults without apologizing for them).
Avoid angry denials, retaliation, name calling.

Check for Closure and two—way understanding of outcome
or compromise.

128

APPENDIX L

Pilot Testing Results

The following are the overall interrater reliabilities for
the reproduction and generalizability scale used by Baldwin
(1992).

Reproduction = .94 Generalizability = .82

The following are the item interrater reliabilities for the
reproduction and generalizability scale used in the pilot
test (n=30). Care was taken to identify the problems with
the lower reliabilities, and standards for coding were set
with the raters.

Reproduction Generalizability
Item # rel. Item # rel.
1 .67 1 .80
2 .79 2 .53
3 .92 3 .54
4 .78 4 .46
5 .86 5 .66
6 .38 6 .52
7 .47 7 .65
8 .64 8 .77
9 .64 9 .61
10 .64 10 .72
11 .88

12 .83

13 .62

14 .38

The alpha for self—efficacy in the pilot test = .87

The alpha for the retention measure in the pilot test = .56.
It was determined that the sample size was too small (n=30)
to make any strong judgments about the scale. However, some
items (#3, #4, #6, #8, #13, #16, #18) had difficulty values
above .85, so the distractors were modified in an attempt to
lower the p-values. The scale in Appendix D represents the
revised scale.

LI ST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ackerman, P.L. (1987). Individual differences in skill
learning: An integration of psychometric and
information processing perspectives. Psychological
Bulletin, igg, 3—27.

Ackerman, P.L. (1989). Individual differences in skill
acquisition. In P.L. Ackerman, R.J. Sternberg, & R.

Glaser (Eds.), Learning and individual differences (pp.
164-217). New York: Freeman.

Ackerman, P.L., & Humphreys, L.G. (1990). Individual
differences theory in industrial and organizational
psychology. In M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (eds).
Hpndbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
2nd ed., (Vol. 1, pp. 223-285). San Diego, CA:
Psychological Corporation.

 

Ausubel, D.P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in
learning and retention of meaningful material. Journal
of Educational Psychology, fil, 267—272.

Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal
learning. New York: Gruene and Stratton.

Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive
view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Ausubel, D.P., & Fitzgerald D. (1961). The role of
discriminability in meaningful verbal learning and

retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, pg, 266-
274.

Ausubel, D.P., & Fitzgerald D. (1962). Organizer, general
background and antecedent learning variables in
sequential verbal learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, fig, 243-249.

Ausubel, D.P., & Youssef, M. (1963). Role of
discriminability in meaningful parallel learning.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 331-336.

129

130

Baldwin, T.T. (1992). Effects of alternative modeling
strategies on outcomes of interpersonal skills
training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 11, 147-154.

Baldwin, T.T., & Ford, J.K. (1988). Transfer of training: A
review and directions for future research. Personnel

Psychology, 4;, 63-105.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theopy. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and

action: A social—cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Barnes, B.R., & Clawson, E.U. (1975). Do advance organizers
facilitate learning? Recommendations for further
research based on an analysis of 32 studies. ngigy_g£
Educational Research, g5, 637-659.

Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain—specific problemr
solving procedures. Journal of Eyperimental Psychology:

Learning, MemopyI and Cogpition, lg, 522-533.

Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K.J. (1989). Interdomain transfer
between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics.

Journal of Eyperimental Psychology: Learning, Memopy, &
Cognition, 1;, 153-166.

Brooks, L.R. (1987). Decentralized control of
categorization: The role of prior episodes. In U.

Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development (pp.
141—174). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Caplan, L.J., & Schooler, C. (1990). Problem solving by
reference to rules or previous episodes: The effects of
organized training, analogical models, and subsequent
complexity of experience. Memopy & Cognition, gg, 215-
227.

Clark, C.H., & Bean, T.W. (1982). Improving advance
organizer research: Persistent problems and future

directions. Reading World, 22(1), 2-10.

Corkill, A.J., Glover, J.A., & Bruning, R.H. (1988). Advance
organizers: Concrete versus abstract. Journal of
Educational Research, pg, 76—81.

Dalton, R.F., Sundbald, L.M., & Hylbert, K.W. (1973). An
application of principles of social learning to
training in communication of empathy. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 29, 378-383.

131

Daniels, T.D., & Whitman, R.F. (1981). The effects of
message introduction, message structure, and verbal
organizing ability upon learning of message

information. Human Communication Research, 7, 147-160.

Decker, P.J. (1980). Effects of symbolic coding and
rehearsal in behavior-modeling training. Journal of
Applied Psychology, pp, 627—634.

Decker, P.J. (1982). The enhancement of behavior modeling
‘training of supervisory skills by the inclusion of
retention processes. Personnel Psychology, 35, 323-332.

Decker, P.J., & Nathan, B.R. (1985). Behavior modeling
training. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Derry, S.J. (1984). Effects of an organizer on memory for'
prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1g, 98-107.

Dinnel, D., & Glover, J.A. (1985). Advance organizers:
encoding manipulations. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 11, 514-521.

Dunnette, M.D. (1976). Aptitudes, abilities, and skills. In
M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (pp. 473-520). Chicago: Rand
McNally.

Foti, R.J., & Lord, R.G. (1987). Prototypes and scripts: The
effects of alternative methods of processing
information on rating accuracy. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 12, 318-340.

Fried, L.S., & Holyoak, K.J. (1984). Induction of category
distributions: A framework for classification learning.

Journal of Egperimental Psychology: Learning, Memopy, &
Cognition, 19, 234-257.

Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and
analogical transfer. Cogpitive Psychology, 1;, 1-38.

Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1987). The cognitive basis of
knowledge transfer. In S.M. Cormier & J.D. Hagman

(Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporagy research and
applications (pp. 9-46). New York: Academic Press.

Gist, M.E., & Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A
theoretical analysis of its determinants and

malleability. Academy of Management Review, 11, 183-
211.

132

Gist, M.E., Schwoerer, C., & Bavetta, A.B. (1989). Effects
of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and
performance in computer software training. Journal of
Applied Psycholoqy, 14, 884-891.

Goldstein, A.P., & Sorcher, M. (1974). Changing supervisopy
behavior. New York: Pergamon Press.

Goldstein, I.L. (1991). Training in work organizations. In
M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol.
2). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hogan, P.M., Hakel, M.D., & Decker, P.J. (1986). Effects of
trainee-generated versus trainer-provided rule codes on
generalization in behavior-modeling training. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 1;, 469-473.

Holyoak, K.J. (1984) Analogical thinking and human
intelligence. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the

psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 199-230).

Homa, D. (1984). On the nature of categories. In G.H. Bower

(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation:

Advances in research and theogy (Vol. 18, pp. 49-94).
New York: Academic Press.

Howell, W.C., & Cooke, N.J. (1989). Training the human
information processor: A review of cognitive models. In

I.L. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development in work
organizations: Frontiers of industrial and

organizational psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Hunter, J.E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes,
job knowledge, and job performance. ggpppgl_g§
Vocational Behavior, 22, 340-362.

Ilgen, D.R., Barnes-Farrell, J.L., & McKellin, D.B. (1993).
Performance appraisal process research in the 19803:
What has it contributed to appraisals in use?

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
.54. 321-368.

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text
comprehension and production. Psychological Review, §§,
363-394.

Kloster, A.M., & Winne, P.H. (1989). The effects of
different types of organizers on students’ learning

from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, g1, 9-15

133

Latham, G.P., & Saari, L.M. (1979). The application of
social learning theory to training supervisors through

behavior modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, pg,
239-246.

Luiten, J., Ames, W., & Akerson, G. (1980). A meta-analysis
of the effects of advance organizers on learning and
retention. Americanggducational Research JournaL, 21,
211-218.

Mann, R.B., & Decker, P.J. (1984). The effect of key
behavior distinctiveness on generalization and recall
in behavior modeling training. Academy of Management
Journal, 21, 900-910.

Marshark, M. (1985). Imagery and organization in the recall

of high and low-imagery prose. Journal of Memopy and
Language, 23, 734-745. .

Mayer, R.E. (1975a). Different problem-solving competencies
established in learning computer programming with and
without meaningful models. Journal of Educational

Psychology, p1, 725-734.

Mayer, R.E. (1975b). Information processing variables in
learning to solve problems. Review of Educational
Research, 22, 525-541.

Mayer, R.E. (1976). Some conditions of meaningful learning
for computer programming: Advance organizers and
subject control of frame order. Journal of Educational

Psychology, p2, 143-150.

Mayer, R.E. (1978). Advance organizers that compensate for
the organization of text. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 19, 880-886.

Mayer, R.E. (1979a). Can advance organizers influence

meaningful learning? Review of Educational Researgh,
4_9.. 371-383.

Mayer, R.E. (1979b) Twenty years of research on advance
organizers: Assimilation theory is still the best
predictor of results. Instructional Science, 2, 133-

167.

Mayer, R.E., & Bromage, B.K. (1980). Different recall
protocols for technical texts due to advance

organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 209-
225.

134

McEneany, J.E. (1990). Do advance organizers facilitate
learning? A review of subsumption theory. Journal of

Research and Development in Education, 22, 89-96.

Michilak, D.F. (1981). The neglected half of training.
Training and Development Journal, 35(5), 22-28.

Norman, D.A., & Bobrow, D.B. (1975). On data-limited and

resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1,
44-64.

Nugent, G.C., Tipton, T.J., Brooks, D.W. (1980). Use of
introductory organizers in television instruction.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 445-451.

Paivio, A. (1983). The empirical case for dual coding. In J.

Yuille (Ed.), Imagepy memopy and cogpition: Essays in
honor of Allan Paivio (pp.307-332). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E., Outerbridge, A.N., & Goff, S.
(1988). The joint relation of experience and ability
with job performance: A test of three hypotheses.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 12, 46-57.

Schumacher, G.M., Liebert, D., & Fass, W. (1975). Textual
organization, advance organizers, and the retention of

prose material. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1, 173-
180.

Smith, M.J. (1975). When I Say No, I Feel Guilty. New York:
Bantam,Books.

Stone, C.L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer

studies. Journal of Eyperimental Education, 22, 194-
199.

Wonderlic personnel test & scholastic level exam. (1992).
Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc.

 

 

”WilliWilli?