Connecting academic vocabulary:
Background knowledge is the knowledge that a reader brings
to their interpretation of a text. Often a reader’s background knowledge can
support their comprehension, or it can alter their understanding in a way that
hinders comprehension. Background knowledge can also be lacking, which hinders
comprehension. There are two forms of background
knowledge that Kucer discusses: content
knowledge (how much you know about horses, for instance) and process knowledge (how to prepare and train
a horse for a horse show, for example). When content knowledge and process knowledge
intersect, they often make up disciplinary
knowledge, which is the combination of content and process knowledge for a
particular discipline, such as science or history. Often, background knowledge
is influenced by one’s cultural
experiences, which act as a larger network of background knowledge that
includes content knowledge and process knowledge, as well as particular
societal standards and customs.
Related to
the role of background knowledge, comprehension has a “situated nature” in the sense that it is situation within the
context of a transaction. Comprehension
occurs through the interaction of ideas from the text, ideas from the reader,
and the “environment in which the text is read” (Kucer 195). One’s
interpretation of a text varies when any of those three factors differs. The
transactional perspective explains how different readers interpret texts
differently and how a single reader can interpret a text differently when
reading it multiple times. This situational
dependency also applies to the writing process. The context of a writing
event determines the function, content, and form of a piece of writing (204).
Questions to Consider
- Did you have any connections among the vocabulary words that I did not make?
- Did you understand any of the terms differently than I did?
- What examples can you think of for the connections among the words?
Thoughts on Table 7.1 in Kucer:
I thought
that Table 7.1 was a really good exercise for illustrating the role of
background knowledge in comprehension, so I’d like to discuss it. Below, I’ve
provided the notes I took while I went through the process described in the
text for Table 7. 1. Make sure you’ve also gone through the activity before you
read my notes or my thoughts.
At first, I
felt fairly confident that it was about a gymnastics tournament or something
similar. I’ve been to several gymnastics tournaments throughout my life, since
my best friend went to them for at least a decade and now coaches gymnastics
teams. I fixated on the word “mat” and couldn’t think of another situation in
which it would be relevant, except perhaps yoga, which didn’t seem to fit with
the text. Upon reading the second section, I was very excited that I simply knew what it was about. With my
experience working at daycares and babysitting when I was in high school and
college, the language seemed to be a playful way to talk about time-out, and
since I was familiar with this situation, I felt pretty confident about the way
that the text fit with my guess. The “reader’s background also influences the
saliency or prominence of the ideas in the text,” and I think that was
definitely what was going on here with me (Kucer 183).
I became much
less sure of myself with the third and fourth portions of the text, since the
language no longer fit so perfectly with any schemata that I’ve developed.
While the text is vague, I no longer felt like I could connect it to my
background knowledge very well. The author said that someone caught him off
guard by guessing that it was about breaking a horse, which I thought was funny
because I hesitantly guessed that after the third section. I have a friend who
breaks horses, and I don’t know much about it. While I couldn’t definitively
say that it fits with that experience, I also couldn’t definitively say that it
didn’t fit. By the fourth section, I was lost and grasping for strings. I didn’t
feel like “prisoner” really fit, but it was the only plausible idea that I
could think of. I lacked the background knowledge and personal experiences to
create a coherent interpretation of the overall text.
Questions to Consider
- What were your thoughts while completing the activity?
- How did your background knowledge and cultural experiences influence your reading of the text?
- What are the implications of this activity or for the other activities for teaching preschool or early elementary?
- What were some of your thoughts during the other activities in this week’s reading?
Similarities and differences between
the models:
One
similarity between the ways that the texts frame the writing process is the “substantial
interrelations between components of writing and reading domains,” such as the
importance of background knowledge, familiarity with purposes for texts, and “code-related
knowledge” (Puranik and Lonigan 455). Another similarity is the discussion of
both content and process background knowledge. A difference, however, is how it
is framed. Kucer, for the most part, focuses on the implications of content and
process background knowledge for forming informative, logical, coherent ideas
in writing. The article, on the other hand, uses these concepts to talk about
the writer’s conceptual and procedural knowledge about writing.
I feel like
the articles supplement one another fairly well. Kucer discusses important
concepts related to the construction of meaning through writing and the
clarity, coherence, and purpose of texts. These are “big picture” ideas that
students’ writing will primarily focus on later in school, so teachers need to
be aware of the implications for instruction in the early grades related to
these concepts. The emergent writing article, on the other hand, focuses more
on emergent writing skills that need to be taught as a foundation for getting
those ideas on paper. For early childhood educators, this is invaluable and
should probably encompass a large portion of their writing instruction.
Also, as for
the methodology, I thought they were fairly thorough. However, I would have
liked to have seen a more diverse group of participants. Also, I think it would
have been useful to gain more sociocultural data, since many of the
participants’ parents did not return the survey. That would increase the
validity of the results of the study. As for the results, on the other hand, I
think the article makes a good point—most studies only focus on one or two
areas of emergent writing, and they were able to encompass a broader framework
than others have in the past. I think that’s valuable.
Questions to Consider
- What’s an instructional implication of one or both models for your current or future classroom?
- What is something from either model that you had not considered before (or perhaps something that you now think about differently)?
- What’s a connection or a difference between the models that I did not address?
Implications of proficiency standards
for writers:
According to
Kucer, oftentimes students are not performing below standards for proficiency
because they lack the writing ability, but because they misunderstood the
implications of the writing situation. Kucer elaborates that “it may be the
case that these students are defining or understanding the particular writing
context or writing genre in ways that differ or even contradict those of the
teacher” (205). The text suggests that teachers respond to this issue by
helping students become more familiar with the particular types of writing
situations that they are encountering and by being more explicit about
expectations for the writing situation.
The emergent
writing model discussed in the article seemed to focus mostly on ascertaining
the student’s ability to get their thoughts on paper, including vocabulary, phonological
awareness, and print knowledge. For emergent literacy, this is probably a good
place to start, although it perhaps encourages writers to focus more on the
physical print than the ideas that the print represents. A more holistic approach
to teaching and evaluating writing might be beneficial, even when emergent
literacy assessments might focus solely on these areas.
Questions to Consider
- What are other instructional implications of standards of proficiency for writing?
- Can you think of a particular example of how this would apply to early childhood or early elementary writing contexts?
- What do you think is left out of these models in terms of determining a student’s proficiency with writing?
Thanks Angela for your comprehensive thoughts. Your questions should really expand thinking.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t necessarily have any different definitions than what you gave. I will say that background knowledge is a huge component not only in reading comprehension, but the process of learning anything. I lived in Mexico for a short amount of time. I could see via cultural norms the vast difference in background knowledge that I had, as compared to native Mexicans. Some of my friends, that were Mexican, assimilated information in a totally different manner based on their background than I did.
ReplyDeleteTable 7.1 was an interesting activity. The first step of the process led me to think of a wrestler in a match. Some of the words that led me to this decision were mat and planning escape. (One of my friend’s just had a son take fourth in state. It was fresh on my mind, thus the connection.) I felt that my comprehension followed as the story went on. The words continued to confirm what I thought. The person was being held. There was a penalty, etc. I never made the connection of a prisoner, though I think that is plausible.
I think this activity is an interesting lead into the use of metaphoric teaching. I think this is the reason that teachers of younger children often use silly sayings or actions that the student can make connections with. For example, teaching sequencing through the steps of baking a cake is a way to teach metaphorically (my understanding anyway).
Regarding the article about emergent writers, you stated your concern about the studies focus on physical print. I think that is a good point. While emergent writers are very print focused, I think it is a teacher’s responsibility to provide a balanced approach to literacy that focuses on how to print, but goes beyond that and gives the student the opportunity to bring background knowledge into their writing. Also, I have read a story to my class, and then as a class, we brainstormed words that corresponded with a unit of study. Next we proceeded in writing perhaps with a prompt. My goal was just to get the students used to the idea of putting thoughts to print. I wanted them to use some of the words we came up with to help them. It was less about mechanics and more about process.
I know there are many theories about the writing process. I can’t say I have a firm view or stance on writing. I do think there are a wide variety of tools available to help writers organize their thoughts. Content plus organization can help any writer. I do think there are still times students need to be able to write without being critiqued on mechanics or content. I wish there was more time in the school day to allow this process to occur.
Cathy, I see the relevance and benefits of metaphoric teaching! Creating connections, especially physical ones, can help cement the concept in the brain and make it easier to make additional connections later.
DeleteI agree that there should be more opportunities to free write in the classroom. My students really enjoyed writing narratives in preparation for the writing test. We do more expository and argumentative writing which get way too many complaints! It was fun to see the difference in attitude and quality of writing when they got to write stories!
Cathy, I also agree that it would be wonderful if there was time for free writing in the classroom. I just think it is still important to teach the students strategies they can use for writing for specific purposes throughout their lives. I also like your use of metaphoric teaching. It sounds like a neat way to foster connections between something the children already understand and something new.
DeleteI knew how important background knowledge was prior to reading; however, I never analyzed it enough to break it down into content and process knowledges. It makes sense though, and I now I know that I need to be more cognizant of addressing both types of knowledge to better help students to connect. That being said, I thought explained the vocabulary in-depth, and my definitions were similar to yours.
ReplyDeleteAngela, have you used the RAP IT strategy? This is the first connection among the words that I can think of. When we begin reading The Outsiders, we discuss social classes and their implications, but we also have students read a philosophy article explaining social classes as well as a couple prominent sociologists using the RAP IT strategy. They have to activate and apply their background knowledge, and because they are reading the article several times, I can definitely see how transactional perspectives change as they often show up in their response to the article.
I really didn't quite know what to think while I read 7.1! I kept trying to make connections, but it definitely was difficult, especially when it talked about a mat, charges, penalties, being ridden, and success and failure. I also assumed Pat was a girl, so I really didn't know what to make of all of the information! I definitely see how not providing adequate background knowledge prior to a reading can frustrate the reader. It was easy to read, but extremely difficult to understand. I imagine that a beginning reader could experience this frequently. After looking at 7.2, I could see how having just a couple of those "hints" could have made a huge difference in comprehending the passage.
One thing that stuck out to me was the difference between blockers and nonblockers. I see both in my room each time we work on an essay. Invariably, the first question is, "How long does this need to be?" Argh!!! I really struggle to get them to move beyond the belief that it must always be 5 paragraphs. We explore different ways to plan and write so that, in my mind, they have more resources to draw from. I like for students to plan out their essays although I use the plan to ensure their essay stays on topic as their body paragraphs are typically completely different from their thesis statements. I am not sure if how I have them approach it, though, is encouraging them to see the "big picture" first or not, but it is something I'd be interested in exploring more so that I could apply it in my classroom.
I struggled with the proficiency section. I see it happening in the classroom, but I'm not always sure what causes it especially when the question/prompt seems to explicitly state what type of response is required. In the same way, I struggle to understand why our students have such a hard time identifying author's purpose. After reading, I can see the relationship between identifying the author's purpose while reading and the purpose for writing. I've often thought that perhaps students were just overthinking, but I think there's more to it as well. We're going to start analyzing questioning language more, so hopefully they'll be able to understand situations better. Situational dependency could easily affect student performance and motivation to write. I imagine it would be extremely frustrating to consistently not understand what is being asked or to be told the response is incorrect because it didn't address the requirements. This repeated frustration and feelings of inadequacy can cause students to shut down.
I found the differences between blockers and non blockers interesting too! I tried to think about it in terms of my own experience when writing. I have the easiest time writing papers when I've already made an informal outline (in my mind) of what I am going to write. I typically have the most difficult time with the introduction, but once I have written it, the process becomes easier. I also found it interesting when Kucer pointed out that "tension derives from the writer not having full control over the ideas— content, form, or both— to be expressed." This is my exact experience of writing papers. If I have done my reading and research and have good background knowledge of a topic, it is easier for me to write about it in a coherent way. If I am assigned to write about a topic that I am not fully versed in, I stumble with writers block. My experiences with writers block occurs when I have a lack of knowledge. I did wonder when reading the chapter, if authors of fiction books and novels that experience writers block have it for different reasons. Maybe they are stuck because they have simply run out of ideas/creativity. I wonder if these principles would apply to all types of writers and situations.
DeleteMelissa,
DeleteI haven't heard of the RAP IT strategy before. It sounds interesting. Does this focus on mainly older students? Do you think there are parts of it that would be beneficial to young children?
Blockers and non blockers was an interesting topic. I made a connection with my own writing as Angela mentioned above. My ability to be organized and articulate a topic well, is truly contingent on my knowledge of the topic. If I am unfamiliar or haven't mastered the subject writing is much more difficult. I also thought Kucer's thoughts about readers understanding writing was intriguing. I hadn't thought about it in that light.
I was a little confused by the difference between content knowledge and process knowledge. I took away from Kucer Ch.7 that when applied to reading, content knowledge includes everything that the reader knows about a subject. It represents a person's schema of the topic. When reading, an individual assimilates new information into his or her schema, and accommodates or adjusts this schema to reflect changes in existing knowledge after reading. Process knowledge involves the person's strategies for reading. Developing reading process knowledge during the early years in school is imperative because without it, the student will struggle to learn new concept information in the academic disciplines later. I don't know if my thoughts are correct, but it was what I took from the reading.
ReplyDeleteIn table 7.1, I really had no idea what the story was about. At first, I thought it was a prisoner because of the phrase "planning escape." But I changed my mind after I read "roughness" and "penalty." Those words I associate with football games "unnecessary roughness." I changed my mind and thought it was football, but that did not go with "mat." I knew it was a sport, I just did not know which sport. I have limited background knowledge of football, and none of wrestling! As far as any implications of Chapter 7 on teaching, I think that it is important to consider what types of texts your children use in their reading curriculum, as well as their background knowledge. One thing that stuck out to me in Chapter 7 was the story related to washing clothes that did not allow the reader to access any background knowledge. After reading that passage, I really had no idea what it was about. I've noticed that some of the "Bob" type early reading "books" that my children have brought home from school honestly do not allow a child to make predictions, or follow any logical pattern. I assume they are used simply for reinforcing phonics and decoding instruction. Are these what are known as basal readers? There are "comprehension" questions on the back page, and neither of my kids could answer them without going back into the book. They are also far from interesting. My kids were able to "read" the words out loud as instructed, but comprehended nothing from these "stories."
Regarding proficiency the writing chapter, I was also a little confused by the description of a study where the researchers concluded that a teacher was interfering and making writing difficult for her elementary school students. This quote from a student in the class I found interesting:
"I just didn’t want to do it. I didn’t want to do a story because it was too hard to keep doing the stuff, you know, the other stuff I needed to do before I could do my story."
Isn't it important to give the children strategies on writing for specific purposes? These were elementary school students with limited experience in writing. I think that like vocabulary, some things do need to be explicitly taught whether or not they interfere with what the child wants to do right now. Even if the student knows what he/she wants to write about now, and doesn't need to brainstorm for ideas, at some point having this skill will come in handy. But, that's just my thought as an inexperienced student.
I agree that the parts of the writing process need to be explicitly taught, but I also think that students must also be taught how to look at a question so that they know how to answer it correctly. I agree that they may not need the skills now, but they could need them in the future especially if they do find themselves in a situation where they need to plan out their ideas more than just in their head. I see it as more than just teaching a skill--it's teaching them how to think as well.
DeleteLindsay, you are on target on our differentiation between content and process knowledge. and yes, it is important to teach children to write for specific purposes. Basal readers are the anthologies of stories that come as a packaged curriculum with teachers editions and workbooks. What you describe are small books for practicing decoding.
DeleteLindsay,
DeleteI agree with you that some of the small books that are word family oriented or easily decoded lack good comprehension components that help kids become stronger in the area of comprehension. It is hard to find a balance between both comprehension and word decoding. I think sometimes I should send homework for parent read aloud and discussion about what happened. Then send other stories that are focused on word decoding. I do think that graphic organizers can help children comprehend the text and helps them focus even when it is a bit boring!
Dr. Beach,
DeleteThank you for answering my questions about basal readers. Now I won't confuse them with the decoding books I have seen. Cathy, I imagine it is difficult to find books that serve the purpose of practicing decoding skills that are accessible to beginning readers that are actually interesting.It must be really hard as a teacher to find a balance.
The vocabulary was interesting. Being able to break things down in such as way, I had not thought of the reading process as something that could bring so many different things together for simultaneous thought.
ReplyDeleteThe Table 7.1 was funny because last week I had already written my experience with schemata that I had learned in a Lit Lab class. It was the EXACT same story. I wonder if the teacher pulled it from the text book! I will be sure to mention it to him. One of the things that a lot of people didn't think about was that it could have been a horse...just throwing that out there.
Writing. It should be explicitly taught. Breaking down and using a rough draft should be shown to all learners. I still have to go back to the 'drawing board' to remember how to write a conflict paper versus a comparison and so on.... Many things are expected to look a certain way or its not correct. ELA teachers can tell it much better than I can but you see what I mean. Even our papers must be in "APA" format. For the writing itself you do have to draw on background knowledge and experiences. Or call upon something that you have learned or go and learn about things. I don't Kaucer stated clearly enough that you cannot write about what you don't know. Even when learning something knew you always relate things back to yourself. You are your best sounding board for a rough draft. A finished product, I think, should be something that is rebounding off of several someone's.
Laranda I never thought the story was about a horse! It never crossed my mind. I think it said that the exercise was given to students in Wyoming and many of them guessed it was about breaking horses- because they were familiar with that. It is amazing how our own background knowledge impacts our interpretations of the same reading.
ReplyDelete