Despite the importance of prior knowledge to learning, few studies have systematically addressed the extent to which or ways in which instructional resources support teachers in the activation of students' prior knowledge, or the extent to which teachers prompt students' prior knowledge activation in practice. In study one, a content analysis was applied to the language in four instructional resources to come to an understanding of the ways in which resources guide teachers to activate students' prior knowledge. In study two, we went beyond teacher resources to examine prior knowledge activation in four (two male, two female) public elementary teachers' reading classrooms. A two-step procedure was followed to analyze teachers' utterances, first discriminating language intended to activate students' prior knowledge (n = 27) from other utterances (n = 1,770), and then examining the 27 knowledge activation utterances and scoring them according to the frame of reference. The results suggest that instances of prior knowledge activation were rare during reading lessons, both with recommended statements and demonstrated actions. Additionally, the analysis found that instructional resources focused predominantly on world knowledge and personal experience, whereas the practitioners focused on knowledge from previously taught lessons.
AlexanderP. A. (2005). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. White Paper. Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
2.
AlexanderP. A.KulikowichJ. M.SchulzeS. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 313–337.
3.
AlvarezM. C.RiskoV. J. (1989). Using a thematic organizer to facilitate transfer learning with college developmental studies students. Reading Research and Instruction, 28, 1–15.
4.
AlvermannD. E.HagueS. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 197–202.
5.
AlvermannD. E.HyndC. (1989). Effects of prior knowledge activation modes and text structure on nonscience majors’ comprehension of physics. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 97–102.
6.
AlvermannD. E.SmithL. C.ReadenceJ. E. (1985). Prior knowledge and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 420–436.
7.
AndersonR. C.PearsonP. D. (2002). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 255–291). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
AndersonR. C.ReynoldsR. E.SchallertD. L.GoetzE. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367–381.
9.
AusubelD. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
10.
BaldwinR. S.Peleg-BrucknerZ.McClintockA. H. (1985). Effects of topic interest and prior knowledge on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 497–504.
11.
BiemansH. J. A.DeelO. R.SimonsP. R. (2001). Differences between successful and less successful students while working with the CONTACT-2 strategy. Learning and Instruction, 11, 265–281.
12.
BraaschJ. L. G.GoldmanS. R. (2010). The role of prior knowledge in learning from analogies in science texts. Discourse Processes, 47, 447–479.
13.
BransfordJ. D.JohnsonM. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.
14.
BrownS.KappesL. (2012). Implementing the common core state standards: A primer on “close reading of text.”Aspen Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/
15.
BursuckB.BlanksB. (2010). Evidence-based early reading practices within a response to intervention system. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 421–431.
16.
CarrS. C.ThompsonB. (1996). The effects of prior knowledge and schema activation strategies on the inferential reading comprehension of children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 48–61.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association. Retrieved fromhttp://www.corestandards.org/
19.
DewitzP.JonesJ. (2012). Using basal readers: From dutiful fidelity to intelligent decision making. The Reading Teacher, 66, 391–400.
20.
DewitzP.JonesJ.LeahyS. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core reading programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 102–126.
21.
DochyF. J.AlexanderP. A. (1995). Mapping prior knowledge: A framework for discussion among researchers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 225–242.
22.
Education Market Research. (2010). Elementary reading market: Teaching methods, textbooks/materials used and needed, and market size. Rockway Park, NY: Author.
23.
FawsonP. C.ReutzelR. (2000). But I only have a basal: Implementing guided reading in the early grades. The Reading Teacher, 54, 84–97.
24.
FörsterJ.LibermanN. (2007). Knowledge activation. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 201–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
FordC. E.ThompsonS. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, into national, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In OchsE.SchegloffE. A.ThompsonS. A. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–185). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GergenK. J. (2009). Relational being. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27.
GurlittJ.RenklA. (2008). Are high-coherent concept maps better for prior knowledge activation? Differential effects of concept mapping tasks on high school vs. university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 407–419.
KantI. (1963). Critique of pure reason (Kemp SmithN., Trans.). London, England: Macmillan. (Original work published 1787)
31.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge.
32.
LipsonM. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 243–261.
33.
Machiels-BongaertsM.SchmidtH. G.BoshuizenH. P. A. (1995). The effect of prior knowledge activation on text recall: An investigation of two conflicting hypotheses. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 409–423.
34.
ManniesN. J.GridleyB. E.KrugD.GloverJ. A. (1989). Knowledge mobilization: Schema activation or generation effect?The Journal of General Psychology, 116, 121–132.
35.
Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. (2011). Treasures. New York, NY: Author.
36.
MooreD. W.BeanT. W.BirdyshawD.RycikJ. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 97–112.
NicholsW. D.ZellnerL. J.RupleyW. H.WillsonV. L.KimY.MergenS.YoungC. (2005). What affects instructional choice? Profiles of K-2 teachers’ use of reading instructional strategies and methods. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 437–458.
PearsonP. D.HansenJ.GordonC. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201–209.
41.
ScottForesman P. (2013). Reading street: Common core. Glenview, IL: Author.
42.
PeeckJ.van den BoschA. B.KreupelingW. J. (1982). Effect of mobilizing prior knowledge on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 771–777.
43.
PichertJ. W.AndersonR. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309–315.
44.
PressleyM.AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
45.
SlavinR. E.LakeC.ChambersB.CheungA.DavisS. (2009). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1391–1466.
46.
van den BroekP.MouwJ.KraalA. (in press). Individual differences in reading comprehension. In AfflerbachP. (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context. New York, NY: Routledge.
47.
WetzelsS. A.KesterL.van MerriënboerJ. J. (2011). Adapting prior knowledge activation: Mobilisation, perspective taking, and learners’ prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 16–21.
