A lot has been said about how we’re not supposed activate students’ prior knowledge anymore because of Close Reading and Common Core State Standards.  It’s true, experts like David Coleman and Tim Shanahan have been recommending that we examine how we teach students to dig into a text more carefully.  There is example after example of well-meaning teachers who, in the name of building background knowledge, end up pre-teaching the entire plot to the students, leaving little meaning for them to construct on their own.  Consider these two personal stories for why we need to be thoughtful and deliberate in what we share with students.

My son recently took an assessment which included an informational article about Tae Kwon Do.  Being a black belt in this martial art, I naturally assumed that Collin would easily master the questions on this text.  Was I wrong!  In fact, he did the opposite of acing this section of test.  I could’t understand it; prior knowledge is supposed to help students comprehend, right?  How can this kid who can count and pledge in Korean not answer relatively low-level questions about the sport he knows so well and loves?  The answer is simple: he relied on his prior knowledge and didn’t really read the article well.  He assumed because he knew about the topic, he didn’t really have to read closely to answer the questions. This plan backfired.  I started wondering if this was his way of attacking all text:  skim to see if it’s something you know about and guess at the answers.  My guess is yes.

Here is another case against over-doing background knowledge.  A couple of years ago, I was visiting in a teacher’s classroom. She was getting her inner-city fourth graders ready to read and excerpt from  Me and Uncle Romie: A Story Inspired by the Life and Art of Romare  Beardon by Claire Hartfield.  The excerpt focused on the narrator going from North Carolina to stay with his aunt and uncle in New York city for a summer.  The Uncle was painter Romare Beardon.  The teacher spent about 45 minutes building background knowledge.  Except, instead of talking about how different it was going to be moving from the country to the city, or things to know about New York (all the people, tall buildings, etc.), the teacher brought in a bunch of Romare Beardon paintings for the students to view and discuss.  Now, this was a great enrichment activity for the students, and could certainly have met any number of objectives or Common Core State Standards.  However, it did not prepare the students in the least for reading or understanding this story.  The students (many of whom spoke English as a second language) still would have difficulty understanding the narrator’s difficult transition or the New York experience.

I’m not saying that we should never do anything to activate or develop our students’ background knowledge.  I don’t believe that this is what the experts are saying either.  I do believe that we need to carefully consider the purpose for our lesson and what seeds we need to plant in order for their comprehension to take root and grow.