The Relevance of Prior Knowledge in Learning and Instructional Design
Open accessAbstract
Objectives To determine how different types of prior knowledge (declarative and procedural) impact student achievement and how prior-knowledge assessment can be used as an instructional design tool. Methods A questionnaire was developed based on the prior-knowledge model, which distinguishes between declarative and procedural knowledge. One hundred fifteen pharmacy students were tested prior to beginning 4 successive basic science courses and then prior to beginning a pharmaceutical chemistry course. Regression analysis was used to determine which type of knowledge was the best predictor of student achievement. The 4 course instructors were interviewed and their comments analyzed. Results Prior knowledge from previous courses significantly influenced student achievement. Procedural knowledge was especially related to student achievement. Instructors and students had mainly positive reactions towards the prior-knowledge tests. Conclusions Students' prior knowledge should be taken into consideration in instructional design and curriculum planning. Furthermore, the results of prior-knowledge assessments may be used as a tool for student support in addressing areas of deficiency.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Not all students come to university with the same knowledge levels and cultural capital.
“It should give lecturers insight that not all students come to university with the same knowledge levels and cultural capital.”
From Social Capital, Culture, and Codes in Higher Education: Bourdieusian and Bernsteinian Philosophical Underpinnings in the South Africa Environment (2024) · cites this paper as Hailikari et al., 2008
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lee, Y.-F., Hwang, G.-J., & Chen, P.-Y. (2022) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-022-10142-8 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
A Comprehensive Systematic Review of AI-Driven Approaches to Self-Directed Learning
Younas, M., Abdel Salam El-Dakhs, D., & Jiang, Y. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3546319 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Pietersen, D., Tsotetsi, C., & Barnett, E. (2024) · Journal of Culture and Values in Education · doi:10.46303/jcve.2024.17 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Lecturers should not assume that all students have the same level of prior knowledge (Hailikari et al., 2008).”
Background
- Authors
- Hailikari, T., Katajavuori, N., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Venue
- American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 113
- ISSN
- 0002-9459 (ISSN-L)
- 1553-6467
- PMC
- PMC2630138
- OpenAlex
- W2065781982
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- prior knowledge, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, prior knowledge assessment, academic performance, instructional design, curriculum development, pharmacy students, medicinal chemistry
- MeSH terms
- Chemistry, Pharmaceutical, Competency-Based Education, Education, Pharmacy, Educational Measurement, Female, Finland, Humans, Learning, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Students, Pharmacy, Teaching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review