Activating And Using Background Knowledge¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (2 for, 2 mixed) · 13 studies (5 review, 3 causal, 2 quant-synthesis, 2 associational, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 2 of 13 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

Activating and using background knowledge is a strategy in which learners deliberately retrieve what they already know about a topic before encountering new material, then connect that knowledge to the new content during and after the encounter. It is carried out through pre-reading prompts, discussion, prediction, Advance Organizers, Analogies, and ongoing activities such as Annotating that force learners to relate new information to what they already hold in memory.

Design Implications¶

Comprehension is fundamentally a process of integrating new information with existing knowledge structures; text that cannot be connected to prior knowledge is poorly remembered even when fully "read" Bransford & Johnson's classic studies show identical text is incomprehensible without relevant context. [+S]. Activation is not a warm-up ritual — it works only when the activated knowledge is used: predictions, analogies, and questions that require learners to apply prior knowledge to the new material produce deeper integration than simply recalling it Dochy et al.'s review shows prior knowledge activation is among the strongest predictors of learning outcomes. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Accurate diagnosis of what learners actually know (misconceptions activated as "background knowledge" interfere with learning)
• Prompts or organizers that surface relevant knowledge before the new material, not after (Advance Organizers)
• Tasks that require learners to make explicit connections — prediction, comparison, Self-Explanation — rather than passive recall Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding by forcing integration with prior knowledge. [+S]
• Text and instruction pitched within reach of learners' existing knowledge, with Accessible Vocabulary & Syntax

Constraints¶

• Activating inaccurate or naive prior knowledge can entrench misconceptions; activation must be paired with Cognitive Conflict or Non-Examples to confront errors
• Learners with genuinely low prior knowledge have little to activate; for them, building knowledge (e.g., through Case Studies or direct teaching) must precede or accompany activation Prior knowledge is not uniformly related to performance when it is not activated or used. [~M]
• Generic "brainstorm what you know" prompts can activate irrelevant knowledge that competes with the target content during reading
• For learners with high prior knowledge, extensive activation scaffolds become redundant and can reduce engagement Expertise reversal: support that helps novices can hinder experts. [~S]

Implementation Variability¶

• Pre-reading: KWL charts, anticipation guides, prediction tasks, Advance Organizers, Analogies mapping new concepts to familiar domains
• During reading: Annotating, text-to-self connection prompts, Chunking text into segments with connection questions Chunking reduces working memory load, freeing capacity for integration. [+S]
• After reading: summarizing, comparing predictions to outcomes, Self-Explanation of how new ideas revise old ones

Target Learners¶

• Learners who possess relevant knowledge but fail to retrieve it spontaneously — the most common case in classrooms Dochy et al.'s review shows activated prior knowledge strongly predicts learning. [+M]
• Novices in a domain, who benefit from organizers and analogies that supply a missing knowledge structure
• Less beneficial for learners with rich, well-organized domain knowledge, who activate spontaneously and may find prompts redundant Expertise reversal: support that helps novices can hinder experts. [~S]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Reading comprehension and conceptual understanding of new material
• Schema construction: integrating new information into existing knowledge structures
• Transfer: recognizing when familiar knowledge applies to unfamiliar problems Analogical reasoning supports transfer by mapping prior structures onto new situations. [+M]

Instructions¶

1. Diagnose what learners know about the topic (quick probe, pre-assessment, or discussion) — including misconceptions.
2. Present an Advance Organizer or Analogies that provides a structure for the new material.
3. Ask learners to make explicit predictions or connections before engaging the new content (Activation).
4. During the reading or lesson, prompt learners to connect new information to the activated knowledge through Annotating or structured questions.
5. After the reading, have learners reconcile predictions with what they learned and explain how the new material changed or extended their prior understanding (Self-Explanation).
6. Address surfaced misconceptions directly with contrasting cases or Cognitive Conflict.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — the narrower pre-reading phase of this strategy
• Accessing Students' Background Knowledge — diagnostic techniques for surfacing what learners bring
• Activate Background Knowledge — related implementation pattern

Examples¶

• Anticipation guides — learners agree or disagree with statements about a topic before reading, then revisit them after; the statements activate relevant knowledge and create a purpose for reading.
• KWL charts — learners record what they Know, what they Want to know, and later what they Learned, making activation and integration visible.
• Recht & Leslie's baseball study — readers with high baseball knowledge comprehended a technical passage about baseball far better than low-knowledge readers of equal reading ability, demonstrating that domain knowledge, not general skill, drives comprehension. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16 [+S]
• Reading Rockets — published classroom routines for pre-reading activation, including picture walks and text-preview strategies.

Key Sources¶

• 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(6), 717–726. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80006-9
• Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267–272. doi:10.1037/h0046669
• Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 16–20. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16
• Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145-186. doi:10.3102/00346543069002145