Background Knowledge:
The Overlooked Factor
in Reading Comprehension
Doug Fisher and Nancy Frey
Overview
Background knowledge is widely discussed as a critical factor in learning, but
in practice it is rarely addressed outside of assessment (Fisher & Frey, 2009;
Kamil, et al., 2008). Yet it is an essential element of acquiring new knowledge.
A study of students’ reading comprehension found that background
knowledge and vocabulary were the strongest predictors of success, and these
factors indirectly influenced whether a student would apply problem-solving
strategies when meaning breaks down (Cromley & Azevedo, 2007). In other
words, background knowledge is not something that merely sits dormant until
it is needed; it mediates the extent to which other reading comprehension
behaviors are utilized. Instruction of strategies is likely to be pointless when
background knowledge is overlooked.
McGraw-Hill networks™
The demand placed on background knowledge accelerates as students progress
though the grade levels. Students are required to activate and apply previously
learned concepts in novel ways. They must read, discuss, and write about
subjects that are conceptually more difficult, often drawing from knowledge
learned in other subject areas. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are
likely to challenge students further as history/social studies and science teachers
join English teachers in preparing students to comprehend informational texts.
The CCSS place an emphasis on the use of complex texts that require students
to read closely in order to discuss concepts, provide evidence, and support
claims. The ability to do so depends in large part on the background knowledge
they bring to the text. In this white paper we will discuss why background
knowledge is critical to learning, as well as how it can be actively built when
gaps emerge.
Background Knowledge Impac ts Reading Comprehension
Perhaps the most well known effect of background knowledge is its ability to directly influence the
understanding of what is read (Stahl, Hare, Sinatra, & Gregory, 1991). It makes perfect sense—the
more you know about a topic, the more likely it will be that you can comprehend what is written
about it. For instance, when reading an abstract of a scientific article (considered to be the most
difficult kind of text), educators are more likely to understand one from the American Educational
Research Journal than from the American Journal of Nursing. It isn’t that you can’t decode the words
or read them fluently, but rather that you don’t have the background knowledge to understand
radiofrequency catheter ablation. The more extensive a reader’s background knowledge is, the easier
it is to acquire new information offered by the text (Alfassi, 2004).
Background knowledge also acts indirectly on reading comprehension. Fluency, an important
contributor to overall reading comprehension, is heavily impacted by the level of background
knowledge one possesses about a topic (Klauda & Guthrie, 2008). The ability to infer meaning in
social studies texts is positively influenced by the level of background knowledge the learner has
(Tarchi, 2009).
Background Knowledge Affec ts Vocabulary Learning
Vocabulary is the means by which learning is articulated. Whether in writing or discussion, the
ability to use vocabulary accurately and incisively is a marker of one’s command of a topic. In
fact, vocabulary is often used as a proxy to measure how learned a person is. Hart and Risley’s
(1995) landmark study of vocabulary knowledge at school entry age accurately predicted a child’s
achievement level years later. Similarly, Stahl and Fairbanks (1986) found that vocabulary knowledge
correlated to grades and standardized test scores.
McGraw-Hill networks™
In social studies, vocabulary is explicitly tied to huge concepts that extend beyond the sequential
time lines of a single period. Words like population, revolution, and migration describe concepts
that “‘clump’ information in meaningful ways [to] allow students to handle the ‘long run’ of history”
(National Research Council, 2005, p. 69). Thus, a simple definition is often inadequate for explaining
how integral these concepts are to the study of history or other social studies topics. This deep
vocabulary meaning is built through a growing bank of knowledge that is continually reorganized
and expanded. This deep bank is known as schema, a network of related knowledge that forms a
mental structure to understand complex systems. As new knowledge is learned, the schema for the
vocabulary becomes more sophisticated. Revolution moves from defining a single event to being able
to detect the commonalities between the Glorious, American, and French Revolutions. Background
knowledge about these events leads to a deeper understanding of a new event.
1
Background Knowledge Contextualizes Historical Thinking
To understand history, one must be able to step away from specific content and look for enduring
understandings; he or she must also closely examine and understand the time period being studied.
It is not uncommon for students (and even adults) at all levels to superimpose current or personal
beliefs, values, and mores onto events of the past. In some cases, these are valid. Societies of the past
and present recoil at the random taking of a human life, but they differ when it comes to human
sacrifice, political assassinations, crimes of passion, etc. Knowledge of the time period being studied
is needed in order to understand how these events were perceived by contemporaries of the time—
in other words, to contextualize. As Reisman and Wineburg (2008) state:
Contextualized historical thinking is impossible to accomplish without background
knowledge. One need not know everything about a historical moment, but a basic chronology
and some familiarity with key developments are fundamental. . . . Background information
allows students to decipher unfamiliar terms and create accurate mental images as they read.
Because teachers cannot expect students to know how certain words were defined in the past
or how today’s institutions differed, such information must be provided. (p. 203)
Tarchi’s (2009) study of seventh-grade students found that those who possessed a solid bank of
topical knowledge about history performed better on measures of reading comprehension of history
texts than students who lacked this foundation. The author speculated that this was due in part
to the discipline-specific need to form causal relationships between events in order to understand
their significance, stating “the more facts the reader knows about a topic, the better he/she will
understand a text concerning that topic” (p. 419). The background knowledge about an era serves to
ground the new learning that will occur in the lesson.
Instruc tional Strategies to Increase Background Knowledge
McGraw-Hill networks™
Having made the case that background knowledge is vital to learning history, it is inadequate to
stop there without discussing curricular and instructional approaches to building this knowledge.
These techniques ensure that background knowledge is not overlooked in the rush to cultivate
new learning. These include teaching conceptually, teaching for transformation, and assessing
background knowledge in order to know where gaps may exist.
1) Teach conceptually. History is often unfairly perceived as the memorization of an endless list of
events, dates, and historical figures. Of course, it is far more than that, but students can have a
difficult time seeing the study of history as an examination of the patterns that mark the human
experience, the factors that lead to the responses of leaders and societies, and the extraordinary
events that have signaled change. As well, it is rare for students to appreciate that the historical
record is not static, and that historians engage in debate and critical analysis of events that
occurred hundreds and even thousands of years ago. But this is a logical, if incorrect, conclusion
in classrooms where isolated facts are emphasized at the expense of analysis.
2
An important means for interrupting these misconceptions about the study of history is to
ground learning in enduring understandings, also known as big ideas (Wiggins & McTighe,
2005). Introducing students to statements such as “People, places, and ideas change over time”
anchors the study of units as diverse as the Articles of Confederation, Charlemagne, and ancient
Greece. The use of enduring understandings assists students in recognizing the patterns that
have defined thousands of years of human history. Understanding is further deepened through the use of essential questions that foster inquiry.
Essential questions differ from enduring understandings in that they invite students to drill
down within a unit of study to find details that help to answer the question. A unit on the
shift from state rule through the Articles of Confederation to a central government with the
Constitution asks the essential question, “How do governments change?” Thought-provoking
questions help students make sense of complex concepts and create opportunities for debate and
discussion because they do not have a singular, concrete answer.
Importantly, the use of essential questions also fosters the kinds of critical thinking and problemsolving skills necessary for advanced learning. For example, Twyman, McCleery, and Tindal
(2006) measured the achievement levels of two groups of eighth-grade social studies students.
One group was taught a unit on colonial U.S. history that emphasized factual knowledge, while
the other was taught the same unit conceptually through the analysis of problems of that period
of history. While both groups performed similarly on a factual knowledge assessment, the
conceptual group performed significantly better on measures of vocabulary and essay writing.
2) Teach for transformation. The Twyman, et al., (2006) study highlights another important
practice: the need to actively engage with the content in order to make it one’s own. Students
need opportunities to transform ideas in their minds and on paper (Fisher, Schell, & Frey,
2004). Simply giving them information with the expectation that they will absorb it and then
regurgitate it is an outdated pedagogical notion. However, when students wrestle with ideas,
the information becomes a part of their knowledge bank. Collaborative projects give students
hands-on experiences to synthesize information and create new understandings (Frey, Fisher,
& Everlove, 2009). For instance, when a group of students work together to create blog entries
chronicling the travels of Paul, a disciple of Jesus Christ, they engage in research, clarify one
another’s thinking, and write in the character of this historical figure. When students learning
about Jamestown and Roanoke work in groups to scout a location for the settlements, they
analyze maps, consider the needs of the settlers, and factor in what little knowledge the settlers
would have had of the native people who lived there. In each example, students transform the
information though oral and written language, and solidify their background knowledge to be
used in subsequent lessons.
3) Assess background knowledge. Assessment should occur before and during instruction, and not
just in summative exercises at the end of a unit. Regarding background knowledge, it is valuable
to determine what will be needed and assess the extent to which students possess it. If and
when gaps are noticed, the teacher can actively build it to facilitate new learning. We think of
background knowledge as falling into two categories: incidental and core. Incidental knowledge
may be interesting but peripheral to the main concepts, while core knowledge is essential to
understanding the new concepts that will be taught (Fisher & Frey, 2009). For example, knowing
that the ancient Greek and Roman empires have influenced Western democratic practices
for two millennia is core background knowledge for a unit on the American Revolution, but
knowing about Greek mythology is incidental for the same unit of study.
McGraw-Hill networks™
Once core background knowledge has been identified, it can be assessed through the use of an
anticipation guide (Tierney & Readance, 2004). Such guides are comprised of five to ten short
written statements that students respond to as true or false. For example, an anticipation guide
for the American Revolution unit might include items such as “The birth place of democracy
is Athens” (true), and “The Greeks were responsible for developing the first republic” (false).
Student responses to these and other statements provide insight into whether they have sufficient
background knowledge for the new information they will be learning. An additional advantage
of using anticipation guides is that they activate background knowledge by signaling what kinds
of information the students will be using during the new unit of study.
3
Conclusion
In the rush to teach new information, it can be tempting for educators to
overlook background knowledge. But to do so is to build on an unstable
foundation. Background knowledge has a profound influence on students’
ability to comprehend what they read. Its effect can be defined directly, as in
knowledge of the topic, as well as indirectly, especially in the ability to resolve
problems when meaning is lost. Evidence of one’s background knowledge can
also be seen in the vocabulary used in oral and written language. Importantly,
the ability to acquire new vocabulary is linked to background knowledge.
Background knowledge has an equally strong effect on students’ ability to
contextualize historical learning. Without knowledge of the broad patterns of
human history, it is nearly impossible to understand the forces that influenced
the time period.
McGraw-Hill networks™
The good news is that there are many curricular and instructional practices
that can positively influence activation of background knowledge. First, it
is useful to teach patterns in history by explicitly identifying the enduring
understandings that transcend a single period. In addition, essential questions
invite students to examine the details of a time or place in order to answer
thought-provoking questions. It is useful to use assessment measures of
background knowledge, such as anticipation guides, in order to examine how
strong students’ foundational knowledge is, as this provides insight into what
should be taught next. By using approaches such as these, we can ensure that
background knowledge is not overlooked.
References
Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school
students. The Journal of Educational Research 97(4), 171–184.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation
model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311-325.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2009). Background knowledge: The missing piece of the comprehension puzzle.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fisher, D., Schell, E., & Frey, N. (2004). “In your mind and on the paper”: Teaching students to
transform (and own) texts. The Social Studies Review, 26-31.
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Everlove, S. (2009). Productive group work: How to engage students, build
teamwork, and promote understanding. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American
children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., and Torgesen, J.
(2008).Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices:
A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, D.C.: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.
Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 310-321.
National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the
classroom. Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers, M. S. Donovan and J. D.
Bransford, Eds. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: The
National Academies Press.
Reisman, A., & Wineburg, S. (2008). Teaching the skill of contextualizing in history. The Social
Studies, 99(5), 202-207.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking
content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40-59.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72-110.
Tarchi, C. (2009). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: A focus on
direct and indirect effects of reader’s prior knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 415420.
Tierney, R. J., & Readance, J. (2004). Reading strategies and practices: A compendium (6th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Twyman, T., McCleery, J., & Tindal, G. (2006). Using concepts to frame history content. Journal of
Experimental Education, 74(4), 331-349.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McGraw-Hill networks™
Stahl, S. A., Hare, V. C., Sinatra, R., & Gregory, J. F. (1991). Defining the role of prior knowledge and
vocabulary in reading comprehension: The retiring of number 41. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23,
487–508.
mcgrawhillnetworks.com
SS 11 M 8353
7/13
1-800-334-7344