Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prior knowledge and its activation in elementary classroom discourse

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to: (a) examine the frequency of prior knowledge (PK) activation in elementary classrooms while students were engaged with text, (b) investigate the relevance of students’ responses to teacher prompts, (c) explore the nature of teachers’ and students’ prior knowledge activation utterances, and (d) investigate whether there were discernible routines in the interactions between teachers and students when activating PK. Participants were 6 teachers and 99 students from a private elementary school in the mid-Atlantic. An analysis of classroom discourse suggested that teachers infrequently prompted students to activate their prior knowledge during reading. Yet, when teachers did prompt PK, they asked about a prior lesson most often, or about a specific text, students’ world knowledge, or their personal experiences. Students then responded to their teachers according to the prompted referential frame. Additionally, four routines of classroom discourse were identified in the data including nonresponsive, question–answer, simple feedback, and interaction routines, with less elaborate routines being most common and primarily occurring at the beginning of lessons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvermann, D. E., & Hague, S. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Educational Research,82(4), 197–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvermann, D. E., O’Brien, D. G., & Dillon, D. R. (1990). What teachers do when they say they’re having discussions of content area reading assignments: A qualitative analysis. Reading Research Quarterly,25(4), 296–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly,20, 420–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (1999). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher,32(8), 10–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (2005). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Journal of Literacy Research,37(4), 413–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal,31(2), 313–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research,61(3), 315–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective consdered. Educational Pscyhologist,44(3), 176–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C. (1984). Role of the reader’s schema during comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools (pp. 243–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction,19, 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 255–291). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal,14(4), 367–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beishuizen, J., Asscher, J., Prinsen, F., & Elshout-Mohr, M. (2003). Presence and place of main ideas and examples in study texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology,73, 291–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biemans, H. J. A., Deel, O. R., & Simons, P. R. (2001). Differences between successful and les successful students while working with the CONTACT-2 strategy. Learning and Instruction,11, 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braasch, J. L. G., & Goldman, S. R. (2010). The role of prior knowledge in learning from analogies in science texts. Discourse Processes,47, 447–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,11, 717–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, S. C., & Thompson, B. (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(1), 48–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernbascher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 165–197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervetti, G. N., & Hiebert, E. H. (2015). The sixth pillar of reading instruction: Knowledge development. The Reading Teacher,68(7), 548–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly,36, 378–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., et al. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,22(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). 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 from http://www.corestandards.org.

  • Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–185). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal,34(1), 174–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaffney, J., & Anderson, R. C. (2000). Trends in reading research in the United States: Changing intellectual currents over thirty years. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 53–74). New York, NY: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). Prior knowledge activation: How different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science,38, 417–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Taboada, A., & Coddington, C. S. (2007). Engagement practices for strategy learning in concept-oriented reading instruction. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 241–266). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattan, C. (2019). Prompting rural students’ use of background knowledge and experience to support comprehension of unfamiliar content. Reading Research Quarterly,54(4), 451–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattan, C., & Alexander, P. A. (2018). Scaffolding reading comprehension for competent readers. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice,67, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattan, C., Singer, L. M., Loughlin, S., & Alexander, P. A. (2015). Prior knowledge activation in design and in practice. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice,64, 478–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, D. A., & Tierney, R. J. (1982). Developing readers’ knowledge through analogy. Reading Research Quarterly,17, 256–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynd, C. R., & Alverman, D. E. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions in science: An on-line study of prior knowledge activation. Reading Research and Instruction,28(4), 12–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., Marttunen, M., & Leu, D. J. (2012). Working on understanding during collaborative online reading. Journal of Literacy Research,44, 448–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction- integration model. Psychological Review,95, 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (2000). The control of knowledge activation in discourse comprehension. In W. J. Perrig & A. Grob (Eds.), Control of human behavior, mental processes, and consciousness: Essays in honor of the 60th birthday of August Flammer (pp. 137–146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & Mangalath, P. (2011). The construction of meaning. Topics in Cognitive Science,3, 346–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipson, M. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior,14, 243–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupo, S. M., Tortorelli, L., Invernizzi, M., Ryoo, J. H., & Strong, J. Z. (2019). An exploration of text difficulty and knowledge support on adolescents’ comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly,54(4), 457–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machiels-Bongaerts, M., Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, H. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,101(3), 740–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment Governing Board. (2010). Reading Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/reading-2011-framework.pdf.

  • O’Flahavan, J. F., Hartman, D. K., & Pearson, P. D. (1989). Teacher questioning and feedback practices after the cognitive revolution: replication and extension of Guszak’s (1967) study (technical report no. 461). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

  • Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher,39(6), 564–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction,19, 228–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., & Cervetti, G. N. (2015). Fifty years of reading comprehension theory and practice. In P. D. Pearson & E. H. Hiebert (Eds.), Research-based practices for teaching common core literacy (pp. 1–24). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peeck, J., van den Bosch, A. B., & Kreupeling, W. J. (1982). Effect of mobilizing prior knowledge on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology,74, 771–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perret-Clemont, A. N., Perret, J. F., & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 41–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. S., & Kurita, J. A. (1989). Strategies that improve children’s memory and comprehension of text. The Elementary School Journal,90(1), 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redfield, D. R., & Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Educational Research,51, 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, K. A. D. (2008). The effects of three instructional methods on the reading comprehension and content acquisition of novice readers. Journal of Literacy Research,40, 359–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., Mouw, J. M., & Kraal, A. (2016). Individual differences in reading comprehension. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text and context (pp. 138–150). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzels, S. A., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2011). Adapting prior knowledge activation: Mobilisation, perspective taking, and learners’ prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior,27, 16–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woloshyn, V. E., Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Elaborative interrogation facilitates adult learning of factual paragraphs. Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 513–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Kaspar, V., & Idle, T. (1994). Enhancing adolescents’ recall of factual content: The impact of provided versus self-generated elaborations. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research,11(1), 57–65.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Teaching and Learning, Illinois State University, Campus Box 5330, Normal, IL, 61761, USA

    Courtney Hattan

  2. Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, 3304 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

    Patricia A. Alexander

Authors
  1. Courtney Hattan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patricia A. Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Courtney Hattan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hattan, C., Alexander, P.A. Prior knowledge and its activation in elementary classroom discourse. Read Writ 33, 1617–1647 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10022-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10022-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation