Advance Organizers
Instructional Strategies Summary Report
"Meta-Analytic Synthesis of Studies Conducted at Marzano Research Laboratory on Instructional Strategies"
August 2009
(475k PDF)
This report synthesizes a series of action research projects that target instructional strategies Marzano Research Laboratory (MRL) has identified for meta-analysis research. The research was conducted between the fall of 2004 and the spring of 2009. The data used for analysis can be found in MRL’s Action Research Meta-Analysis Database.
"Advance organizers" provide students with an opportunity to preview content prior to the presentation of the content in class.
The following tables show a summary of the findings for the independent action research studies in our Meta-Analysis Database that utilized advance organizers as a target instructional strategy. For a listing of the independent action research studies, click here.
Meta-analytic techniques were used to aggregate the findings from the independent action research studies using the statistical package Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 2). In general, meta-analytic techniques are used when the results of independent studies on a common topic are combined. To combine studies that address the same topic in different academic content areas, the results of each study are translated into an effect size. The effect size used in these studies is the standardized mean difference. In very general terms, a standardized mean difference is the difference between the averages of the experimental and control groups divided by an estimate of the population standard deviation.
The first table reports the results of a meta-analysis of observed effect sizes for this strategy. The second table reports the results of a meta-analysis when the observed effect sizes have been corrected for attenuation due to a lack of reliability in the dependent measure (i.e., teacher-designed assessments of student academic achievement). When a dependent measure is not perfectly reliable it will tend to lower the strength of observed relationships between independent and dependent variables. Consequently, it is always advisable to correct an observed effect size for attenuation (i.e., decrease in observed effect size) due to unreliability of the dependent measure. Each of the observed effect sizes was corrected for attenuation using .75 as an estimate of reliability. The observed effect sizes were divided by the square root of the reliability to produce the corrected effect size.
Observed Effect Size
|
Number of Studies
|
Weighted Average Effect Size
|
Standard Error
|
95% Confidence Interval
|
Minimum Effect Size
|
Maximum Effect Size
|
Percentile Gain
|
|
Lower Limit
|
Upper Limit
|
|
7
|
-0.01
|
0.11
|
-0.24
|
0.21
|
-0.26
|
0.58
|
0
|
Corrected Effect Size
|
Number of Studies
|
Weighted Average Effect Size
|
Standard Error
|
95% Confidence Interval
|
Minimum Effect Size
|
Maximum Effect Size
|
Percentile Gain
|
|
Lower Limit
|
Upper Limit
|
|
7
|
-0.01
|
0.13
|
-0.25
|
0.24
|
-0.29
|
0.67
|
0
|
Consulting a table of the normal curve, the overall percentile gain associated with the corrected weighted average effect size of -0.01 is .0040. This means that on the average, the utilization of advance organizers in the independent action research studies represent no difference over what would be expected if teachers did not use advance organizers.
The effect size reported in the table is a weighted average of all the effect sizes from the seven independent action research studies. As such, it is considered an estimate of the true effect size of the experimental condition (i.e., use of advance organizers). The 95% confidence interval includes the range of effect sizes in which one can be 95% certain the true effect size falls. When the confidence interval does not include 0.00, the weighted mean effect size is considered to be statistically significant (p < .05). The probability associated with the reported effect size is not statistically significant.
It is important to note that this finding is not consistent with other research on advance organizers. Although the weighted average effect size is -0.01, four of the seven independent studies exhibited a positive effect size (0.06, 0.19, 0.24, and 0.58). In light of the other research, it is likely that the weighted average effect size would increase with additional independent studies.
More Research on Advance Organizers
|
Synthesis Study
|
Focus
|
Number of Effect Sizes
|
Average Effect Size
|
Percentile Gain
|
|
1
|
General effects of advance organizers
|
110
|
.21
|
8
|
|
2a
|
General effects of advance organizers
|
17
5
|
.09
.77
|
3
28
|
|
3
|
Expository advance organizers
|
44
|
.80
|
29
|
|
3
|
Narrative advance organizers
|
12
|
.53
|
20
|
|
3
|
Illustrated and written advance organizers
|
15
|
.52
|
20
|
|
4
|
General effects of advance organizers
|
387
|
.37
|
14
|
|
5a
|
General effects of advance organizers
|
29
16
|
.45
.24
|
17
9
|
Source: The Art and Science of Teaching. (Marzano, ASCD, 2007, p. 33)
a Two effect sizes are listed because of the manner in which effect sizes were reported. Readers should consult those studies for more details.
Synthesis Studies:
-
Luiten, J., Ames, W., & Ackerson, G. (1980). A meta-analysis of the effects of advance organizers on learning and retention. American Educational Research Journal, 17(2), 211-218.
-
Lott, G. W. (1983). The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizers upon student outcomes in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 437-451.
-
Stone, C. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer studies. Journal of Experimental Education, 51(7), 194-199.
-
Hattie, J. A. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 36(1), 5-13.
-
Walberg, H.J. (1999). Productive teaching. In H.C. Waxman & H.J. Walberg (Eds.) New directions for teaching practice research, 75-104. Berkley, CA: McCutchen Publishing Corporation.