Activating Prior Knowledge

Tapping into students’ existing knowledge of a subject to increase future learning gains

Key Method
The educator designs an expository reading activity that incorporates the activation and use of student’s prior
knowledge to improve learning gains.

Method Components
The educator guides students through a three-step activity aimed at activating students’ prior knowledge and
leveraging that knowledge to improve learning outcomes. This activity can be conducted individually, in small
groups, or in whole-group instruction.

Three-step framework for activating prior knowledge

(This framework is commonly referred to as a K-W-L activity.)
1. Access what the students already know about the subject of the expository reading and organize the
prior knowledge into general categories.
2. Determine what the students would like to learn using those general categories as guidance.
3. Have students list and recall what was learned as a result of the expository reading.

Suggested strategy for conducting a K-W-L activity

1. Accessing what students know and organizing that knowledge into general categories of information
§ Encourage students to brainstorm what they already know about the topic of the expository text.
During this step, the educator records whatever the students volunteer about the topic for the
class to see. “The critical component here is to select a key concept for the brainstorming that is
specific enough to generate the kinds of information that will be pertinent to the reading” (Ogle
565).
§ Encourage students to think of what they already know about a topic in terms of more general
categories of information likely to be encountered when they read. The educator then uses these
categories to help the students compartmentalize their prior knowledge and focus their reading.
a. Example: "I see three different pieces of information about how turtles look. Description or
looks is certainly one category of information I would expect this article to include." (The
teacher then writes this category description, "how sea turtles look," under the Categories
of Information heading.) The teacher proceeds, "Can you find another category from the
information we've volunteered?" (Ogle 565).
§ Students can then use this knowledge of general categories of information to store their new
specific data about whatever topic they are reading. This is also a helpful tool for the educator to
determine how much prior knowledge students have on the subject of the reading.

2. Determining what the students would like to learn

§ After the educator has created general categories of information associated with the students’
prior knowledge, he or she highlights disagreements or gaps in the information volunteered by the
students.

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under: 1

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
 § The students use these gaps or disagreements to generate their own questions associated with the
selected text.

3. After reading the text, the students recall what they learned.
§ “After completing the article, direct the audience to write down what they learned from reading.
Have them check their questions to determine if the article dealt with their concerns. If not,
suggest further reading to fulfill their desires to know. In this way, you are setting the clear priority
of their personal desire to learn over simply taking in what the author has chosen to include” (Ogle
567).

Supporting Research
Research shows that all knowledge is connected to prior knowledge. “Prior knowledge is extremely important
in influencing how we interpret what we read and what we learn from reading” (Anderson).

§ Ogle, Donna M. “K-W-L: A Teaching Model That Develops Active Reading of Expository Text.” The
Reading Teacher, Vol. 39, No. 6 (Feb., 1986), pp. 564–570.
§ Anderson, Richard C. "The Notion of Schemata and the Educational Enterprise." In Schooling and the
Acquisition of Knowledge, edited by Richard C. Anderson, Rand J. Spiro, and William E. Montague.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977. Pg 564
§ Anderson, Richard C., and James W. Pichert. "Recall of Previously Unrecallable Information Following a
Shift in Perspective." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, vol. 17 (February 1978), pp. 1–12.
§ Bransford, John. "Schema Activation? Schema Acquisition." In Learning to Read in American Schools,
edited by Richard C. Anderson, Jean Osborn, and Robert C. Tierney. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
1983.
§ Duffy, Gerald G. “From Turn Taking to Sense Making: Classroom Factors and Improved Reading
Achievement.” Occasional Paper No. 59. East Lansing, Mich.: Institute for Research on Teaching,
Michigan State University, 1983.
§ Durkin, Dolores. "Is There a Match Between What Elementary Teachers Do and What Basal Reader
Manuals Recommend?" The Reading Teacher, vol. 37 (April 1984), pp. 734–744.

Resources
§ K-W-L A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text,
https://fu-ctge-5245.wikispaces.com/file/view/Ogle.pdf
§ PBS Learning Media. Summarizing: Activating Prior Knowledge,
http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/ristrat.pd.reading.summ.sapknow/summarizing-
activating-prior-knowledge/
§ Strategies for Activating Prior Knowledge, from Instructional Strategies for Engaging Learning Guilford
County Schools TF, 2002,
http://www.classhelp.info/Biology/Strategies for Activating Prior Knowledge.pdf

Submission Guidelines & Evaluation Criteria

Following are the items you must submit to earn this micro-credential and the criteria by which they will be
evaluated. To earn the micro-credential, you must receive passing evaluations for Parts 1 and 3 and a “Yes” for
Part 2.

Part 1. Overview questions

(200-word limit for each response)

§ Activity Description: What kind of project or activity did you and your students engage in to activate
prior knowledge? Please describe the learning activity and strategy you used.

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under: 2

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
 - Passing: Activity description is clear with sufficient detail to illustrate what the educator did to
demonstrate competency.
§ Activity Evaluation: How do you know your students increased their proficiency by engaging in the
activity, and what evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
- Passing: Activity evaluation process and evidence are clear, appropriate, and sufficient to evaluate
the competencies.

Part 2. Evidence/artifacts
Please submit examples of student work from two students (writing, audio, images, video, other media) that
demonstrate progress toward the activating prior knowledge competency. This may include completed K-W-L
charts, video of discussions and reading, or other evidence of competency.

“Yes” “Almost” “Not Yet”

Student work examples show Student work examples show Student work examples show no
conclusive evidence that activation some evidence of how activation evidence of how activation prior
of prior knowledge led to of prior knowledge led to knowledge was activated, and the
increased learning gains, and the increased learning gains. activated knowledge has little to do
activated knowledge is clearly and However, learning gains are with the expository text
unambiguously linked to the ambiguously or unclearly
expository reading prompt associated with the expository
text

Part 3. Teacher reflection

(200-word limit for each response)

§ How did the activity associated with your demonstration of activating prior knowledge help to improve
learning outcomes?
- Passing: Educator reflection clearly indicates how the activating prior knowledge activity led to
improved learning outcomes.

§ Were there any relevant challenges, observations, or modifications you made while demonstrating
competency in activating prior knowledge?
- Passing: Educator reflection includes relevant challenges, observations, or modifications made by
the teacher in order to demonstrate competency. Modifications are appropriate, given the context
described in part one.

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under: 3

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/