RUNNING HEAD: EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON COMPREHENSION
The Effects of Prior Knowledge on Reading Comprehension
Cynthia Gibbs
Texas Woman’s University
READ 5453
Dr. Anne Simpson
Fall 2012
1
RUNNING HEAD: EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON COMPREHENSION
2
The Effects of Prior Knowledge on Reading Comprehension
Introduction/Purpose
Prior knowledge has been widely accepted by scholars and educators to be an important
component to assist students with reading comprehension. “It is widely accepted that students
benefit from recalling what they know about a topic before they read” (Hammond & Nessel,
2011, p.62). It is significant to review prior knowledge and the impact it has on literacy, in
particular reading comprehension, because according to Hammond and Nessel (2011), prior
knowledge is a part of a student’s schema, is a “critical component of comprehension” (p. 23)
and is “essential for the construction of meaning” (p. 24). Miller (2002) uses schema and prior
knowledge interchangeably and believes that students need to use prior knowledge to make
thoughtful choices about what they read. It is considered to be student centered because it comes
from the students’ experiences and the connections they themselves make with the text. Miller
(2002) stated in her book that research done by Anderson and Pearson in 1984 showed that
proficient readers “activate relevant prior knowledge before, during, and after reading text” (p.
8). The teacher or student needs to know how to activate the student's prior knowledge for it to
have an effect on comprehension while the student is at different points in the reading of the text.
Readers use prior knowledge to make connections with the text to self, the world and other texts.
Readers also use prior knowledge to create mental images in their head.
RUNNING HEAD: EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON COMPREHENSION
3
The topic of prior knowledge and reading comprehension interests me because I
struggled with comprehension as a young student and would have liked to have known how to
use prior knowledge to help me comprehend texts. As a future teacher, I would like to know
how to use prior knowledge to get students interested in reading because they are able to make
connections and meaning from the text. The main research question that came to mind when
deciding on this research paper was what are the effects of prior knowledge on reading
comprehension and are these effects positive or negative? In this paper, I will go over two
research studies I reviewed to assist in answering these research questions.
Research Process and Data Collection
Google Scholar search was the first place reviewed for research. Keywords and phrases
such as “prior knowledge” and “reading comprehension” were used to locate resources. Several
articles were found on ERIC; however ERIC was not providing online articles at the time. I then
went to the TWU Library and retrieved research studies utilizing the same keywords and phrases
from JSTOR. These research studies came from International Reading Association, Reading
Research Quarterly, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology and Reading and Writing.
Reading with Meaning by Debbie Miller (2002) and The Comprehension Experience by
Hammond and Nessel (2011) were also utilized to assist me with my research and for
background study. Studies were obtained for elementary and middle school levels. The most
valuable information obtained was from two research studies by McKeown, Beck, Sinatra, and
Loxterman (1992) and Alvermann, Smith and Readence (1985). These are the two studies I will
be taking a deeper look at in this paper.
RUNNING HEAD: EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON COMPREHENSION
4
Research Studies Overview
The McKeown, Beck, Sinatra, and Loxterman (1992) study entitled “The Contribution of
Prior Knowledge and Coherent Text to Comprehension” set out to answer the research question
of whether relevant background knowledge before reading compensated for the less coherent text
or whether an advantage would still be demonstrated for the coherent text. Forty-eight 5th grade
students were provided with relevant background knowledge about the British and the colonists’
lives before the Revolutionary War and tested the effects of this knowledge on comprehension of
more and less coherent versions of a text. All students were given a thirty-five minute
instructional module that was designed to upgrade their background knowledge prior to reading
the text. Two different versions of the text were given. One version was the actual original text,
which was considered the less coherent text. The second version took the original text and made
it more coherent by changing every so many words. Students read four different sections, one
section at a time, and then answered thirty-four open-ended questions. They were then asked
what they recalled from what they read. The findings of the study revealed that the students who
read the more coherent text recalled significantly more material and answered more questions
correctly than the students who read the original text. Results suggest that background
knowledge is most useful if the text is coherent enough to allow the reader to combine the
information to make meaningful representation.
The study done by Alvermann, Smith and Readance (1985) entitled "Prior Knowledge
Activation and the Comprehension of Compatible and Incompatible Text" examined the effect of
prior knowledge activation on average readers’ comprehension. Fifty-two 6th grade average
RUNNING HEAD: EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON COMPREHENSION
5
readers were chosen as subjects to assist with the research of three questions - 1) Will activating
students’ background knowledge differentially affect their ability to comprehend text containing
information that is either compatible or incompatible with their prior knowledge; 2) If so, will a
similar pattern exist for specifically targeted comprehension indices as for non-targeted
comprehension indices on the incompatible text; and 3) Will students’ perceptions of compatible
and incompatible text differ with respect to prior knowledge activation? Each student was given
a pretest approximately one month before reading passages of text to determine their domain
knowledge about rattlesnakes and sunlight. The subjects were then split into two groups - an
activation group and a non-activation group. Both groups were assigned texts about rattlesnakes
and sunlight. In the first session, the activation group was asked to use the strategy of activating
their prior knowledge by writing down everything they know about rattlesnakes before reading
the text. The non-activation group was also assigned the text about rattlesnakes, but was asked
to write down everything they know about an unrelated subject before reading the text. Postreading measures were then taken with each group. These post measures included the subjects
writing down everything they could remember about what they just read and answering ten
multiple choice questions. Six of these questions were incompatible with the students' prior
knowledge. A post-session questionnaire was also given to the subjects. This questionnaire
included forced-choice questions and three open-ended questions. A week later, the same
procedures took place with the same two groups, however they used text about sunlight. The
results actually showed that prior knowledge may interfere with, rather than facilitate, reading
comprehension under certain conditions as subjects with prior knowledge allowed it to override
the text information. Also, there was no difference between activators and non-activators on
RUNNING HEAD: EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON COMPREHENSION
6
compatible text and no facilitative effect for prior knowledge activation when used in
conjunction with compatible text.
Themes
The research revealed the main theme that prior knowledge can have an affect on reading
comprehension. However, several factors can come into play in regards to whether or not the
effect is positive or negative on reading comprehension. Text must be coherent to make
meaningful representation (McKeown et al., 1992). In other words, the text must be logical and
consistent with the prior knowledge in order for the comprehension strategy to work. Also, prior
knowledge should be activated appropriately and strategies used effectively, as with the
activation group in the Alvermann, Smith and Readence (1985) study, for prior knowledge to
have a profound effect on comprehension. If a new strategy is being taught, the teacher should
use texts that are more coherent and familiar to the students so the students can focus on
activating their prior knowledge and using the strategy several times to comprehend text. “It’s
not enough to just learn the strategy; the use of that strategy must become fully automatized
before its true impact on performance can be known” (Gaultney, 1995, p.160).
From a negative stance, students can sometimes rely on prior knowledge rather than text
to comprehend material, even if they contradict each other. “Prior knowledge may interfere
with, rather than facilitate, reading comprehension under certain conditions… (Subjects) allowed
their prior knowledge and experiences to override the text information” (Alvermann et al., 1985,
pg. 420). We believe that our prior knowledge is more accurate then something different we just
learned in the text. Hammond and Nessel (2011) also stated that students may “also have
knowledge that they don’t realize is relevant and some that they think is relevant but isn’t. In
RUNNING HEAD: EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON COMPREHENSION
7
discussing, they will share misconceptions and say things that are incorrect…although they may
think they know some things and don’t know others, they may be mistaken on both
counts…Because students’ prior knowledge is complex and imperfect, just asking them what
they know is not enough. They must also be encouraged to think critically about their ideas”
(pp.62-63).
Implications
Research studies continue to be done on the effects of prior knowledge on reading
comprehension and other literacy components. Implications for more research were found from
the studies reviewed. With the results from the Alvermann et al. (1985) study, more research
should be done on why students refer to prior knowledge rather than contradictory knowledge in
the text and what teachers can do to shift students’ paradigms. Teachers should help the student
determine whether or not a student's prior knowledge is inaccurate and they "must also be
prepared to show students how to make better use of their texts in resolving the conflict.
Teachers, for instance, may choose to model for their students how they would monitor their
own comprehension when reading counterintuitive text" (Alvermann et al., 1985, p. 435).
The McKeown et al. (1992) study found that prior knowledge can have an affect on
reading comprehension when combined with coherent social studies text. The study did not take
into consideration what the subjects already knew about the British and colonists pre-, during, or
post Revolutionary War, which may have had an effect on how they responded. Also, many
teachers have to work with whatever text they are given by the school district, whether it's
RUNNING HEAD: EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON COMPREHENSION
8
coherent or not. If the text is less coherent, the teacher should provide additional information
about the topic beforehand to assist in the comprehension of the text. A study could be done to
see if this would help students to comprehend the less coherent text better versus providing prior
knowledge with a coherent text. The text used in this study was a social studies text, which
would be considered an informative text. Would the results be the same for coherent narrative
text? Activating prior knowledge for informative text and narrative text differs. According to
Hammond and Nessel (2011), informational text requires the reader to connect new information
with knowledge they already have, while narrative text requires the reader to have some
understanding of human behavior to comprehend what they are reading. It would be interesting
to see a study done comparing informative texts and narrative texts and how prior knowledge
affects the two similarly and differently.
More research studies need to be done in the lower primary grades of K-3 in regards to
using prior knowledge to assist with comprehension as students are learning how to read. I was
unable to locate any studies for these grade levels. However, I found it interesting that I did find
studies performed on undergraduates in college, as a college student has had several years of
learning how to activate prior knowledge and instruction, whether effective or ineffective.
Several studies were also found during my research on using prior knowledge to teach English
Language Learners and children with either learning or severe mental disabilities. It would be
interesting to review these studies and see the results that prior knowledge has on these students,
not just in terms of reading comprehension, but also in their acquisition of English and learning
how to read.
RUNNING HEAD: EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON COMPREHENSION
9
Final Summary/Conclusion
The purpose of this research paper was to learn more about prior knowledge and answer
the research question of what are the effects of prior knowledge on reading comprehension. The
research studies reviewed found the theme that prior knowledge does have an effect on
improving reading comprehension in a positive way as long as the background information is
accurate, strategies to use this knowledge are taught and utilized appropriately and the text used
is coherent enough so students can make meaning out of it. Sometimes prior knowledge can
have a negative effect on the comprehension of text if the background information is inaccurate
and students do not know how to resolve the conflict of different information. In conclusion,
prior knowledge is an important facet for helping students comprehend text and it can have a
profound effect on how students make meaning of what they are reading.
RUNNING HEAD: EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON COMPREHENSION
10
References
Alvermann, D., Smith, L., & Readence, J., (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the
comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20,
(4), 420-436.
Gaultney, J., (1995). The effect of prior knowledge and metacognition on the acquisition of a
reading comprehension strategy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 142-163.
Hammond, W., & Nessel, D., (2011). The comprehension experience: Engaging readers through
effective inquiry and discussion. Portsmouth, NH.
Gaultney, J., (1995). The effect of prior knowledge and metacognition on the acquisition of a
reading comprehension strategy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 142-163.
McKeown, M., Beck, I., Sinatra, G. & Loxterman, J., (1992). The contribution of prior
knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. International Reading Association, 27,
(1), 78-93.
McNamara, D., Ozuru, Y., Floyd, R., (2011). Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The
roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers’ prior knowledge. International Electronic
Journal of Elementary Education, 4 (1), 229-257.
Miller, D., (2002). Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in the primary grades.
Portland, ME
Priebe, S., Keenan, J., & Miller, A., (2012). How prior knowledge affects word identification and
comprehension. Reading and Writing, 25, 131-149. doi: 10.1007/s11145-010-9260-0
Stahl, S., Jacobson, M., Davis, C., & Davis, R., (1989). Prior knowledge and difficult vocabulary
in the comprehension of unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, (1), 27-43.