SUBSUMPTI

ONTHEORY(
DAVI
DP.AUSUBEL–1962)

Oneoft hest rongestcri

tici
smsoft heinformat i
onpr ocessingmodel wast hatitdidnotaccount
forvariati
oni nt heeffor
tnecessar ytoacqui reknowl edgeofdi fferentcont enttypesorby
diff
erentl earners.[
1]Thepr ominentchampi onoft hi
sv i
ewwasDav i
dP.Ausubel (1918- 2008),
whodedi catedmuchofhi sprofessi onalcareertodef i
ningandpr omot ingt heideaof
meani ngful cognitiv
elearning.Hist heorywasf ir
stpresent edinASubsumpt i
onTheor yof
Meani ngful LearningandRet ention( Ausubel ,1962)andThePsy chol ogyofMeani ngful Verbal
Learning( Ausubel ,1963).Itwasl aterexpandedi ntwoedi tionsofEducat i
onal Psy chology:A
CognitiveVi ew( Ausubel,Nov ak,&Hanesi an,1968; Ausubel ,Nov ak, &Hanesi an, 1978).The
1978edi t
ionwasar evi
sionofAusubel ’sideasbasedonr esearchandf eedbackf r
om st udents
andcol leagues.I twasthisedi t
iont hatwassel ectedast hepr i
mar ytextt oreviewi nthepr esent
studyf orlocal pri
ncipl
esofl earningaccor dingt oAusubel ’stheor y,alongwi thASubsumpt ion
TheoryofMeani ngfulLearningandRet ent i
on( Ausubel,1962) .

In1978Ausubelwasf ormallyref
err
ingtohistheoryasassimil
ati
ontheor
yinorderto
“emphasizeamaj orcharacter
ist
ic;
theimpor t
antinter
acti
ver
olethatexi
sti
ngcogniti
ve
struct
uresplayi
nt heprocessofnewl earni
ng”(Ausubeletal
.
,1978,p.v)
.Tocontextuali
zehis
theory,
Ausubeletal.di
stingui
shedbet weentwoty pesofl
ear
ning,r
oteandmeani ngf
ul,and
arguedthat—cont
rarytosomepopul arcl
aims[2]
—mostschool l
earni
ngwasnotr ote,but
meaningful
:

Ther otel ear ningofl i

st sofnonsensesy llablesandar bitr
ar i
lypairedadj ect i
vesi srepr esentati
ve
offewdef ensi bl
elear ningt asksinmoder ncl assrooms.I tisal sodiffi
cul ttof i
ndsuppor ti
ve
evidencef orUnder wood’ sassertionthat“muchofoureducat ionaleff
or tisdev otedt omaki ng
rel
at i
v elymeani nglessv er balunit
smeani ngful”(11, p.111) .Brutememor izati
onof
represent ational equiv alents(e.g.,l
ist
sofv ocabul aryinf oreignlanguagest udy ,t
hev aluesof
variousconst antsinmat hematicsandsci ence)t endst ofor m av er
ysmal lporti
onoft he
curriculum, especiallybey ondtheel ement aryschool year s,oncechi l
dr enhav emast eredt he
basicl etterandnumbersy mbols.Meaningf ul l
ear ni
ngofv erball
ypresent edmat eri
als
const itutest hepr i
ncipal meansofaugment i
ngt hel earner ’
sst oreofknowl edge, bothwi thinand
outsidet hecl assroom.Hence, nor esearchpr ogr am pur por ti
ngt oadv ancet hisobj ectivecan
avoidcomi ngt ogr i
pswi tht hefundament al vari
abl esi nvolvedi nmeani ngful l
earning. (Ausubel,
1962, p.215)

Accor dingt oAusubel etal.(

1978)bothrot
eandmeani ngf
ullearni
ngcoul doccurintwo
differentmodes, r
eceptionanddiscov
ery.Thoughnotcompl etel
yagai nstthem,Ausubeletal
.
feltthat“ di
scov er
ymet hodsofteachi
nghar dl
yconstit
uteanef f
ici
entpr i
mar ymeansof
transmi tti
ngt hecontentofanacademi cdi
scipli
ne”(p.26)
.Thisineff
iciencywasduet othe
extraef fortrequir
edbyt helear
ner.Whereinrecepti
onlear
ning“theent i
recontentofwhatisto
belearnedispresentedtothelearneri nit
sf i
nal f
orm”(Ausubel
,1961, p.16) ,
discoverylearni
ng
requi
resamuchgr eatereff
ortinwhichl earnersmust“ r
earr
angeagi venar rayofinformation,
i
ntegrateitwit
hexi st
ingcognit
ivestructure,andr eor
gani
zeortransformt hei nt
egrated
combi nat
ioninsuchawayast ocr eateadesi redendproductordiscov erthemi ssi
ngmeans-
endrelati
onship”(p.17).I
nt heend“ thediscov er
edcontentisi
nternali
zedj ustasinr ecepti
on
l
earning”(p.17).

I
nv erbalrecepti
onlear
ning,presentedmateriali
smer el
y“int
er nal
ized,”i
.e.
,madeav ail
able
(
functionall
yreproduci
ble)forfutur
euse…Recept i
onl earni
ngi smeani ngfulprovi
dedthatthe
l
earneradopt sasettorelat
et hemat eri
alt
ocogni ti
vestructure,andt hatthemat er
ial
itsel
fis
l
ogicall
y,i.
e.,non-
arbi
tr
aril
y,relat
ablether
eto.Inotherwor ds,pupilsdonoti ndependentlyhave
t
odi scoverconceptsorgener ali
zat
ionsbeforetheycanunder standoruset hem meani ngful
l
y.
(
Ausubel ,1962,p.213)

Ausubelassumedamodel ofcogni
ti
veorganizati
ont hatsupposed“ t
heexistenceofacogni
ti
ve
st
ructur
ethatishier
archicall
yorgani
zedintermsofhi ghl
yincl
usiv
econcept ualtr
acesunder
whicharesubsumedt racesoflessincl
usiv
esub- conceptsaswel lastracesofspecif
ic
i
nformati
onaldata”(1962,p.216).Ausubeletal.(1978)lat
erdescribedthreelear
ning
pr
ocessesbywhi chnewknowl edgeisassi
mi l
atedintoexisti
ngcogni t
ivestr
uctur
e:

1.Subor
dinat
elear
ning(
ther
ear
etwot
ypes)
:

Inderi
vati
vesubsumpt ion,
newinfor
mat i
onisli
nkedtosuperor
dinat
eideaAandr epr
esents
anothercaseorextensionofA.Thecri
ti
calatt
ri
butesoftheconceptAarenotchanged,butnew
examplesarerecognizedasrel
evant.(
p.68)

Incorrel
ati
vesubsumption,newinf
ormationyi sl
inkedtoideaX,buti
sanextension,
modi f
icat
ion,
orquali
fi
cationofX.Thecri
ticalatt
ri
butesofthesubsumingconceptmaybe
extendedormodifi
edwit hthenewcorr
elativesubsumption.(
p.68)

2.Super
ordi
nat
elear
ning:
Insuperor
dinat
elearni
ng,est
abli
shedi
deasa1, a2,
anda3ar erecogni
zedasmorespeci
fi
c
examplesofnewi deaAandbecomel i
nkedtoA.Superordinat
eideaAisdefi
nedbyanewsetof
cri
ti
calatt
ri
butesthatencompassthesubor
dinatei
deas.(p.68)

3.Combi
nat
ori
all
ear
ning:

I
ncombi nat
orial
learni
ngnewideaAisseenasrel
atedt oexi
sti
ngideasB, C,andDbuti
s
nei
thermoreincl
usivenormorespeci
fi
cthani
deasB, C,andD.Int hi
scase,newideaAi
sseen
tohavesomecr i
teri
alatt
ri
but
esincommonwithpreexisti
ngideas.(p.68)

Inal lthreetypesofassi milationlearni

ng“ newi nformat i
oni slinkedtor el
ev ant,preexi sti
ng
aspect sofcogni tivest
ruct ureandbot ht henewl yacqui redinformat i
onandt hepr eexisting
structur earemodi fi
edint hepr ocess”(Ausubel etal.
,1978, p.68) .The“ maj orprincipleof
organi zation”thatmakest hi spossibleisoneof“ progressivedi ff
erenti
ation”( p.62) ,wher eby
“themostgener al andinclusiv eideasoft hedisci pl
inear epr esentedfir
st.Thent heyar e
progr essivelydifferent
iatedi nt er
msofdet ai
landspeci f
icity”(pp.189-190) .Threev ariables
det er
mi netheext enttowhi chassi mil
ati
ont hr
oughpr ogr essivediff
erentiati
oni spossi ble:(a)
av ail
ablesubsumer s,(
b)di scriminabil
it
y, and( c)stabili
tyandcl ari
tyofsubsumer s.Thi swas
descr ibedasf ollows:

Onei mpor t
antv ariableaffectingt heincor porabi l
ityandl ongevityofnewmeani ngfulmaterial
is
theav ail
abil
ityincogni t
ivest r
uct ureofr elevantsubsumi ngconcept satanappr opriatel
y
proximat el
ev elofi nclusi
v enesst oprovideopt imal anchorage.Ifappropri
atelyrel
evantand
proximat esubsumer sarenotpr esent ,t
hel ear nert endst outil
i
zet hemostr elevantand
proximat eonest hatar eav ail
able.Butsi ncet hel attersubsumer sdonotpr ovideopt i
mal
anchor age,andsi nceitishi ghlyunl i
kelyt hatthemostr elevantandpr oxi
mat esubsumi ng
concept saret ypicallyavailablet olearnersi nmostl earningsit
uations,i
twoul dseem desirabl
e
tointroducet heappr opri
at esubsumer sandmaket hem partofcogni t
ivestr
ucturepriortothe
actual pr
esent ationoft hel earningt ask.Thei ntroducedsubsumer swoul dt
husconst i
tut
e
effi
cientadv ance“ organi
zer s”oranchor ingf oci fort herecepti
onofnewmat eri
al.

Asecondi mport
antfactorpr
esumabl yaff
ecti
ngther et
enti
onofameaningf ul
lear
ningtaskis
theextenttowhichitisdiscr
iminablefr
om theestabli
shedconcept
ualsystemsthatsubsumei t
.
Ar easonableassumptionhere,
bor neoutbyprel
iminaryinv
esti
gati
on(6)
, wouldbethatift
he
disti
nguishingf
eatur
esoft henewl ear
ningmateri
al werenotor
igi
nall
ysali
entandclearl
y
discr
iminablef r
om stablesubsumi ngfoci
,theycouldbeadequat el
yrepresent
edbyt helatt
erfor
memor ialpurposes,andwoul dnotper si
stasdissociabl
eent i
ti
esidenti
fi
ablei
ntheirownr i
ght.
Inotherwor ds,onlydiscri
mi nablecategori
calvar
iantsofmor eincl
usiv
econceptswoul dhav e
l
ong-termr etenti
onv alue.Thedi scri
minabi
li
tyofnewmat eri
alscoul
dbeenhancedbyr epeti
ti
on
orbyexplicitl
ypointi
ngoutsi mil
ariti
esanddiff
erencesbet weenthem andthei
rpresumed
subsumer sincogni t
ivest r
ucture.

Lastl
y,thelongevi
tyofnewmeani ngful
mat eri
alinmemor yhasbeenshownt obeaf uncti
onof
thestabil
i
tyandclari
tyofi
tssubsumer s(6).Ambi guousandunst abl
esubsumer snotonly
provi
deweakanchor ageforrel
atednewmat eri
als,butal
socannoteasi l
ybedi scri
minatedfr
om
them.Factorsprobabl
yinf
luenci
ngt heclar
ityandst abi
li
tyofsubsumi ngconceptsincl
ude
repet
iti
on,thei
rrel
ati
veage,theuseofexempl ars,andmul ti
-cont
extualexposure.

(Ausubel
,1962,
pp.219-
220;
seeal
sot
her
est
atementoft
hesei
deasi
nAusubel
etal
.
,1978,
pp.
168-169)
[3]

Indescr
ibi
ngsubsumpt i
ontheoryi
n1962, Ausubel
provi
dedaninteresti
ngandv er
yplausi
ble
expl
anati
onf orthephenomenonoff orget
ti
ng.Hisexpl
anat
ioncentersont heconceptof
memor i
alreduction,
whichis,t
heleastcommondenomi nat
orcapabl eofrepresenti
ng
cumulat
ivepriorexperi
ence:

Althoughthest abil
ityofmeani ngfulmat eri
alisiniti
all
yenhancedbyanchor aget orelevant
conceptual f
oci i
nt helearner’
scogni ti
vestructure,suchmat erial i
sgraduall
ysubj ectedtot he
erosivei
nfluenceoft heconceptualiz
ingt r
endi ncogni ti
veor gani zati
on.Becausei tismor e
economi calandlessbur densomet or et
ainasi ngleinclusi
v econceptt hantor ememberal ar
ge
numberofmor especi f
icitems,theimpor tofthel att
ertendst obei ncorporatedbyt he
generali
zedmeani ngoft heformer .Whent hissecondorobl iterat i
vestageofsubsumpt i
on
begins,t
hespeci fi
ci temsbecomepr ogressiv
elylessdi ssociabl easent i
ti
esint heirownr ight
untilt
heyar enolongerav ail
abl
eandar esaidtobef orgotten.

Thisprocessofmemor ialreducti
ontotheleastcommondenomi natorcapabl eofr epr
esent ing
cumulat i
vepr iorexperi
encei sv er
ysimilartothereducti
onpr ocesschar act eri
zingconcept
for
mat ion.Asi ngl
eabst ractconceptismor emanipulableforcogni t
ivepur posest hant hedozen
div
ersei nstancesf rom whi chit
scommonal it
yisabstracted;andsimi l
arl
y, thememor i
al resi
due
ofideational experi
encei salsomor efuncti
onalforfuturelearningandpr obl em-solvi
ng
occasionswhenst r
ippedofi tstangenti
almodi f
ier
s,parti
cularizedconnot ations,andlesscl ear
anddiscr i
mi nableimplication.Hence,barri
ngrepeti
ti
onorsomeot herspeci alr
eason[ e.g.,
primacy,uni
queness,enhanceddiscr
iminabil
it
y,ortheav ai
l
abili
tyofaspecial
lyr
elev
antand
stabl
esubsumer( seebelow)]fort
heper pet
uati
onofdi ssociabi
li
ty,
speci
ficit
emsofmeaningf
ul
experi
encethataresupporti
veoforcorrelat
ivetoanest abl
ishedconceptualent
it
ytend
gradual
lytoundergooblit
erat
ivesubsumpt i
on.(pp.217-218)

Ausubel (1962)fur
therexpl
ainedt
hatthecommonf act
orbetweenl ear
ningandf or
gettingis
thattheybot hrepr
esenta“changeint
heav ail
abi
li
tyorfut
urereproducibi
li
tyofthelearning
mat eri
al,
”withlear
ningrepr
esenti
ngan“incrementinavai
labi
l
ity
”andf orgett
ingrepresenti
nga
“decrementi navai
labi
li
ty”(
p.218).

Inadditiont ot hepr i
nciplesofl earningfoundinhi sexpositi
onofassi mi l
ati
ontheory ,Ausubel et
al.(1978)pr ov i
dedaf airl
ycompr ehensivediscussionofsev eralotheri
deasr egardingt he
natureofl ear ning.Thesei ncludest atements—somebasedonl yont heory ,
othersbasedon
empi ri
cal evidence—r egar di
ngcogni ti
veaspectsofl ear
ningsuchas: conceptformat ion, criteri
a
attr
ibutes, mul ti-
contextuallearning,stagesinconceptacqui siti
on,int
egrativereconcili
at ion,
sequent i
al organi zat
ion, t
ransferabili
ty,t
her ol
eandsi gni
ficanceofpr acticeanddr i
llinanon-
stereotypical sense,ther oleoff eedback, t
henat ureofpracti
ce, f
requencyofpr acti
ce, ear lyv s.
delayedr eview, pr
ompt ingandgui dance,autonomousungui deddiscov ery,di
ff
erentialpr actice
schedules, andt hecont extofpr acti
cev s.contextofperformance.Al thought hesear ef art oo
numer oust odi scussher e,theyhav ebeencodedaccor dingt othemet hodout l
inedinchapt er
two.

[1]I
ndivi
dual
dif
fer
encesi
nretent
ionandacqui
sit
ion,
aswellasdi
ff
erencesbasedondi
ff
erent
contentty
peswasnotedatl
eastasearl
yas1913byEbbinghaus(
1913,p.3).

[
2]Ausubelspeci
fi
cal
lyci
tesUnder
wood,B.J.(
1959)Ver
bal
lear
ningi
ntheeducat
ivepr
ocesses.
Har
vardEducati
onalRevi
ew.,
29,107-
117.

[3]Notethereferenceher etoadv ance“ organizer

s.”ThoughAusubel supposedonecoul d
supplythenecessar yanchoringpoi ntsjustintimeforinstructi
on,(Anderson,Spi
ro,&Anderson,
1978,p.439)citeBar nes&Clawson( 1975)asst ati
ngthatt heresearchtosupportthi
sclaim
“hasproveninconcl usive.
”Andersonetal .
,fur
therstat
et hat“iti
sdiffi
cultt
oseewhyout l
i
ning
subsequentmat erial i
nabstr
act,inclusi
v etermsshouldhel preaders…whent hereaderdoesnot
possessrelevantschemat a,
thereisnogoodr easontosupposet hattheycanbeacquiredfrom
af ewabstr
actlywor dedsentences.”