Let’s begin the discussion on how to deal with the problem of prior knowledge when the
reader brings so very little to the constructing meaning process.
The main problem I see from surveying to reading to reviewing is the thinking processes
taught are taught too shallow and not enough time is given to deliberate practice for these
processes to consolidate and override competing neural networks.
Looking at prior knowledge: let’s look at the first rule for learning from Rita Smilkstein’s
Brain rules which is based on the latest neuro-imaging research:
Dendrites, synapse, and neural networks grow only from what is already there. What is
already there is prior knowledge.
New structures grow in the learner’s brain during learning, and learning is the growing of
new brain structures (dendrites and neural networks). In other words, learning and
growing new brain structures are the same thing. (Smilkstein, 2003) However, to
reemphasize, growing new brain structures only grow form what is already there
(dendrites of prior knowledge).
Shallow of Deep Learning: We will use surveying – an old standby that helps the reader
get an overview of the reading selection before reading by reading the title, introductory
paragraph, heading, subheading, pictures, etc. While surveying can provide a good
overview and sense of the organization of the text and can tap prior knowledge; it can
also be a very passive (shallow) activity. To truly make surveying a deep link to prior
knowledge, the reader has to take control of their thinking and deliberately seek their own
brains for prior knowledge wit their own internal dialogue that runs along side of the text
being read. This is fairly easy to understand, but takes time to consolidate enough to be
come internalized. Here are the initial internal dialogue questions the students and I
model to one another orally and in writing that tap prior knowledge with each step of
surveying and with all reading between asking question using text clues and reciting
(which also is prior knowledge activity:
Internal Dialogue Inquiry:
1. What do I already know?
2. Are there examples in the book and do I know any examples of the concept being
considered? Examples, explanations, and illustrations are the authors attempts to help the
reader make the connections with prior knowledge.
3. How is what I am reading like or different than what I already know? One cannot
compare or contrast new information with what one already knows without tapping prior
knowledge.
4. Can I predict where this is going? Prediction is the tapping of prior knowledge.
5. How has the author organized the information in this reading selection and how does it
relate to prior readings?
Note: Writing the answers to the questions above (internal dialogue prompts)is one of the
most important tools for slowing the reader down and helping them learn to think about
their thinking. An internal dialogue prompt is, in the initial stages of learning, any text
clue for what the above internal dialogue questions should be asked.
These are deep cognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies require ongoing thought,
interpretation can choice – a very active process.
Keep in mind that we are teaching thinking processes, not content. Students will
construct meaning at various level depending on their prior knowledge. The responses are
not right or wrong responses to internal dialogue questions; they are however
opportunities to model and scaffold the thinking processes one another.
We can expect that textbooks will not necessarily be prior knowledge friendly to the
reader. If I am teaching psychology, I can provide prior knowledge before the reading;
however, the reader with a textbook does not have that advantage. They must learn how
to construct meaning, make that meaning prior knowledge almost immediately, so
that the next concept , which builds on the first is understandable. That is a tall order.
We are not talking about an easy process. The problem is that one cannot make the newly
constructed meaning prior knowledge immediately – that takes time. The internal
dialogue inquiry exercises above slow the reader down to give the brain time to
consolidate the information (convert information from short-term memory to long-term
memory), especially if they write or take notes on their responses to their questions.
Consolidation Rules:
Another approach to consolidation of information to make it prior knowledge is
Medina’s most powerful consolidation rules (Medina, 2008).
1. Deliberately re-expose yourself to the information if you want to retrieve it
later.
2. Deliberately re-expose yourself to the information more elaborately if you
want the retrieval to be of higher quality.
3. Deliberately re-expose yourself to the information more elaborately, and in
fixed intervals, if you want the retrieval to be the most vivid it can be.
The Problem with Large Comprehensive Textbooks When Looking at Prior
Knowledge
First, let’s look at why learning information in large comprehensive college
textbooks is often so difficult (Caverly). Think about what we learned about how the
brain learns, especially tying new information to prior knowledge while reading so
new learning is not forgotten.
Large, comprehensive textbooks do not
 invite reader construction of meaning,
 honor the knowledge the reader brings to the text, or
 lend themselves to critical reading
These textbooks usually have most if not all to the following characteristics:
 high conceptual density; Refers to the number of ideas packed into a few words,
and the accessibility of the conceptual references.
 compression of information;
 a paragraph may represent a volume of research;
 use of special terminology, often as the object of learning,
(Caverly, 2000)
Another thing to keep in mind is that
A couple of words about a textbooks audience appropriateness:
Audience Appropriateness
What Caverly is pointing out above about typical large comprehensive textbooks is that
for many textbooks the match between the reader’s topic knowledge or prior knowledge
may be very small. When the distance between the reader’s prior knowledge and the
content of s specific passage is wide, the more important it is for the reader to have
developed cognitive strategies for evaluating their level of understanding and strategies
for constructing meaning.
“One important aspect of text related to reader appropriateness is conceptual density, or
the number of new concepts per unit of text. In general, the denser the conceptual load,
the more difficult the text (Kintsch). Considerate texts, therefore, say a lot about a few
ideas rather than a little about many ideas. Concepts are elaborated and explained
thoroughly enough to be understandable by the target audience, considering their likely
topic knowledge (reader prior knowledge of the topic). By sacrificing depth for breath,
textbooks often fail to explain concepts and clarify the relationships among ideas in a
way that matches the topic knowledge of the intended audience”. (Lapp, Flood, &
Farman) Unfortunately, many textbooks are not considerate.