Quotations

 Section one
Reading comprehension:
1
“Reading comprehension means the ability to use context and knowledge to derive meaning from what
is read like grammatical competence, knowledge of morphology, syntax, gaining meaning out of context, using
schemata and metacognitive knowledge, recognizing text structure, and predicting what will come next into a
text” (Hudson,2007).
Type: long quotation.
Paraphrase: Reading comprehension refers to the capacity of using context and knowledge to extract
meaning from written content such as understanding grammar, knowing word structure, sentence structure and
interpreting context using mental framework and self-awareness to enhance understanding to identify the text
building, and prophesy what going to happen then into a text. (Hudson.T (2007) Teaching second language
reading . Oxford University Press)
Summary: Reading comprehension involves using various skills and strategies to understand and derive
meaning from a text. This includes using context, grammar, morphology, syntax, and schema, as well as
recognizing text structure and making predictions about what will come next in the text.
Critical comment
Definition of reading comprehension: I agree that reading comprehension is more than just understanding
individual words. It involves using different skills like grammar, knowledge of word structure, and being able
to understand the meaning of a text based on the context. However, the factors that are mentioned are just few
of the components that contribute the readings comprehension it is important to mention also vocabulary,
inference making and having critical thinking that play a huge roles in understanding and deriving meaning
from a text.

Strategies:
1.2.3 Prior knowledge:
2
“IT is argued that there is a relationship between reading comprehension and prior knowledge many
researchers agree that prior knowledge effectively increases reading comprehension although it sometimes in
certain texts it creates a kind of biasness” (Johnston, 1984).
Type: long quotation
Paraphrase: It is contended that there is a connection between reading understanding and preexisting
knowledge, experts are in consensus that preexisting knowledge significantly boost reading understanding,
sometimes in particular text it makes a sort of bias .
Summary: Many researchers argue that prior knowledge positively impacts reading comprehension,
although it can sometimes lead to bias, particularly in certain texts.

Skills
1.3.2 language comprehension:
3
“the process of interpreting words and connected discourse” (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018; Juel, 1988).
Type: short quotation (too short to summarize)
Paraphrase: Language comprehension involves interpreting individual words as well as connected
discourse.
  Section two

2.1Definition of prior knowledge:

4
As stated by Ausubel, (1968): “ If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I
would say this: The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows.
Type: long quotation
Paraphrase: According to Ausubel . ( 1986 ) , If he condenses of all of educational psychology into one
core principle it would be the greatest aspect shaping learning is what the learner previously knows. Determine
it and educate him effectively.
Summary: Ausubel highlighted that the learner's existing knowledge is the most crucial factor influencing
learning, and teaching should be tailored accordingly.
2.2 Types of prior knowledge:
5
“Prior knowledge can be distinguished into two different knowledge types” (Yuksel , 2012 , p 1198).

Type: Short quotation.

Paraphrase: according to Yuksel (2012) There are two distinct sorts of prior knowledge.
Summary: two types of prior knowledge (Yuksel, 2012 , p 1198).
2.2.1 Different strategies to active prior knowledge:
2.3.3 Small Group Discussion: 6’’In this strategy, teachers give a problem, a situation or topic to their students
to discuss in small groups. After discussion, groups share their ideas and findings with whole class. By doing
that, teachers can observe students’ prior knowledge related to the topic" (Yuksel , 2012, 1199).
Type : Long quotation.
Paraphrase: In this approach, educators present a problem, scenario, or subject for students to explore
within small groups. Following group discussions, findings and ideas are shared with the entire class. This
allows teachers to notice students' prior understanding of the topic (Yuksel , 2012 , p 1199).
Summary: In small groups, Teachers use this strategy by discussing a problem, then students sharing their
findings with the whole class, teachers can determine their prior knowledge (Yuksel , 2012 , p 1199).
 Critical comment
Ausubel highlights the importance of prior knowledge in the learning process, it might not cover all the
complexities of educational psychology. While prior knowledge is indeed significant, but there are other factors
such as motivation, learning styles and socio-cultural context, also play vital roles in effective teaching and
learning process .
Moreover, focusing only on what learners already know could miss the benefits of introducing new and
challenging ideas to help their minds grow. So, I agree that the concept of Ausubel is helpful, but without
neglecting the fact that it is important to consider other things that affect how we learn.

 Section three
3.1 The different roles that effect prior knowledge on student’s reading performance
3.1.1 the role of domain knowledge:
7
“Knowledge can be classified according to its specificity; background knowledge comprises all of the world
knowledge that the reader brings to the task of reading. This can include episodic (events), declarative (facts)
and procedural (how-to) knowledge as well as related vocabulary “(Kintsch,1998).
Type : long quotation.
 Paraphrase: A reader's background knowledge includes all of the information they bring to a reading
assignment, including declarative (facts), procedural (how-to), episodic (events), and associated vocabulary.
Knowledge may be categorized based on how detailed it is. (Kintsch,1998)
Summary: Background knowledge refers to the world knowledge a reader brings to a reading task,
including episodic, declarative, and procedural knowledge, along with related vocabulary.

3.1.3 The role of the text:

8
“These texts make particular demands on the knowledge of the reader as such texts, by definition, are written
to inform by building on a reader’s existing knowledge of a particular topic “(Beck & McKeown, 1991).
Type: short quotation
Paraphrase: These books place special demands on the reader's expertise since, by definition, they are
created to enlighten by building on a reader's previous knowledge of a certain topic (Beck & McKeown,
1991).
Summary: These books require a high level of expertise as they aim to enhance a reader's understanding
of a specific topic by building upon their prior knowledge.

3.1 Method
3.2.1 inclusion criteria9:” General study characteristics include that Assessments of preexisting
knowledge were either a measure of 220 R. SMITH ET AL. general knowledge unrelated to the target text
or a specific assessment of knowledge and skills related to the passages used for comprehension. Outcome
measures has curriculum-based outcome measures (e.g., Key Stage assessments), standardized tests (e.g.,
Iowa Test of Basic Skills “(Hoover, Dunbar, & Frisbie, 2001)
Type: long quotation

Paraphrase: broad knowledge unrelated to the target text; or a particular evaluation of information and
abilities relevant to the comprehension passages. Outcome measurements include curriculum-based
measures (e.g., Key Stage assessments), standardized tests (e.g., Iowa Test of Basic Skills and Gates-
MacGinitie Reading Test), and researcher-designed evaluations of reading comprehension (Hoover, Dunbar,
& Frisbie, 2001)

Summary: Reading comprehension assessment involves general knowledge or specific skills related to
the target text, using curriculum-based, standardized tests, or researcher-designed assessments.

3.2.2 Procedure:
10
“We used a critical review methodology. A critical review synthesizes material from diverse sources,
analyzing it in order to produce a hypothesis or model based on the data and study outcomes” (Grant &
Booth,2009).
Type: short quotation
Paraphrase: We used a critical review process. A critical review synthesizes material from many sources
and analyzes it to develop a hypothesis or model based on the facts and research findings. (Grant &
Booth,2009).

Summarize: The critical review process was employed to synthesize and analyze data from various sources,
forming a hypothesis or model based on the facts and research findings.

3.2.3 Study characteristics:

11
“Descriptive characteristics This is consistent with the wider field of research focusing on expository text
due to its difficulty; narrative texts are less demanding on background knowledge than expository texts”
(Nelson, 1998; Olson, 1985; Spiro & Taylor, 1987; Wolfe & Woodwyk, 2010).
Type: short quotation
 Paraphrase: Descriptive qualities This is congruent with the larger area of study that focuses on
expository writings because to their complexity; narrative texts are less demanding on preexisting
knowledge than expository texts. (Nelson, 1998; Olson, 1985; Spiro & Taylor, 1987; Wolfe & Woodwyk,
2010).
Summary: The research focuses on expository texts due to their complexity, while narrative texts are
less demanding on background knowledge.

 Critical comment:
While the quote highlights the importance of background knowledge in reading, its oversimplified
classification neglects the complexity and diversity of individuals' experiences. It fails to acknowledge the
dynamic nature of reading comprehension and overlooks socio-cultural influences on background knowledge.

3.3 Results and discussion:

3.3.1 method used to assess comprehension and knowledge vary between studies:
12
” Firstly, it is difficult to make direct comparisons of background knowledge effects, and secondly,
different levels of comprehension are assessed by each of the measures. For example, tasks which assess a
READING PSYCHOLOGY 225 reader’s memory of the literal aspects of text, such as summaries, sentence
recognition and cloze items, probe a surface level representation of the text: the textbase constructed by the
reader”. (McNamara et al., 1996; Tapiero, 2007)
Type: long quotation.
Paraphrase: First, it is hard to establish direct comparisons of prior knowledge effects, and second, each
test assesses various degrees of comprehension. For example, measures that assess a reader's recollection of
the literal parts of text, such as summaries, phrase recognition, and cloze items, examine a surface-level
representation of the text. The textbase created by the reader. (McNamara et al., 1996; Tapiero, 2007).

Summary: Direct comparisons of background knowledge effects and different comprehension levels are
challenging, as tasks like summaries, sentence recognition, and cloze items probe a surface-level
representation of the text.

3.3.2 Knowledge Interacts with the Coherence and Cohesion of the Text:
13
” Understanding a text is moderated by an interaction between background knowledge and the text’s
coherence and cohesion. “An alternative explanation is that the demands on prior knowledge imposed by
expository texts are significantly greater than those imposed by narrative text – consequently, the impact of
poor prior knowledge may be far more pronounced with expository texts” (Cervetti & Wright, 2020; Wolfe &
Woodwyk, 2010).
Type: long quotation

Paraphrase: An additional interpretation is that the demands on previous information imposed by

explanatory writings are substantially larger than those enforced by narrative texts; hence, the impact of poor
prior knowledge may be far more evident with expository texts. (Cervetti & Wright, 2020; Wolfe &
Woodwyk, 2010).
Summary: Expository texts impose greater demands on prior knowledge than narrative texts, making
the impact of poor prior knowledge more pronounced.

3.4 contribution of the findings to a wider context:

14
“The finding that different tools for assessing reading comprehension are used across various studies is not
surprising; it has been a debated topic for some time ” (e.g., Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999; Johnston &
Pearson, 1982).
Type: short quotation
 Paraphrase: It is not unexpected that different instruments are employed in different research to
measure reading comprehension because this is a topic that has been discussed for a while. (e.g., Dochy,
Segers, & Buehl, 1999; Johnston & Pearson, 1982).

Summary: Provided that reading comprehension has long been a divisive subject, it is not surprising
that different instruments are used in different studies to measure it.
3.4.1 Limitations of the reviewed research studies:
15
“Most interventions in this study were short-term, ranging from two to 12 hours of instructional time.
In a middle primary classroom, time is typically spent building students’ knowledge in less well-defined
domains such as ‘The American Revolution’ and ‘Classification’”(Kim et al., 2021).
Type; long quotation.
Paraphrase: The majority of the interventions in this study had a short duration, lasting between two and
twelve hours of teaching. Students' knowledge is usually developed in less well-defined areas, such "The
American Revolution" and "Classification," in a middle primary school. (Kim et al., 2021)
Summary: The study found that most interventions in middle primary classrooms are short-term, ranging
from two to 12 hours, focusing on less well-defined domains like 'The American Revolution' and
'Classification'.
3.4.2 Limitation of the review ///
3.4.3 Recommendations for practice and the future research:
16
“Findings from this review suggest that children would benefit from exposure to background
knowledge in a specific, explicit and sequenced way” (Connor et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2021).
Type: short quotation .
Paraphrase: the review's conclusions imply that children might gain from exposure to background
information in a methodical, explicit, and sequential manner (Connor et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2021).
Summary: The review indicates that children would benefit from specific, explicit, and sequenced
exposure to background knowledge.

 Critical comment
The quote raises concerns about the effectiveness of short-term interventions, given the limited instructional
time available in middle primary classrooms. It questions whether such brief interventions allow for meaningful
learning experiences, particularly in complex subject areas like 'The American Revolution' and 'Classification'.
This prompts reflection on the need for balance between breadth of content coverage and depth of
understanding within constrained timeframes.
 List of references
1. Arbib,Michael. (1992). Schema theory. Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence.
2. Ausubel, D . ( 1968 ) . Educational psychology: Acognitive view , Holt , USA .
3. Barnes,Dennis & Haefele -kalvaitis. (1996) .Cain et al .,2001.
4. Beck, I. L., & Mckeown, M. G. (1991). Research directions: Social studies texts are hard to understand:
Mediating some of the difficulties. Language Arts.
5. Biemans, Harm.J.A. and P.ROBERT JAN . Simons.( 1996 ). CONTACT-2: A Computer-Assisted
Instructional Strategy for Promoting Conceptual Change, Instructional Science .24 .p 157-176.
6. Biggs, J. (1999) .Teaching for Quality Learning At University. Buckingham, UK. SRHE and Open
University Press. p 165-203.
7. Carr, E. and Ogle ,D. (1987). K-W-L Plus: A Strategy for Comprehension and Summarization, Journal of
Reading, 30(7). P 626-631.
8. Castles , Rostle, & Nation. (2018) . Juel ,1988
9. Cervetti, G. N., & Wright, T. S. (2020). The role of knowledge in understanding and learning from text.
Handbook of Reading Research, 5, 237–260.
10. Connor, M. C. ,Dombek, J., Crowe, E. C., Spencer, M., Tighe, E. L., Coffinger, S., Zargar, E., … Petscher,
Y. (2017). Acquiring science and social studies knowledgein kindergarten through fourth grade:
Conceptualization, design, implementation, and efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI).
Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 301–319.
11. 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.
12. Dochy, Filip & alexander, Patricia, (1995), Mapping Prior Knowledge: A Framework for Discussion
Among Researchers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(3): p 225-242.
13. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review.
14. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated
methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.
15. Guastello, E.F. BEASLEY ,T.M. and SINATRA, Richard .(2000).Concept Mapping Effects on Science
Content Comprehension of Low-Achieving Inner-City Graders. Remedial and Special Education.21(2). ( p
356-365).
16. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2014). Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.
17. Hoover, H., Dunbar, S., & Frisbie, D. (2001). Iowa tests of basic skills (ITBS) forms A, B, and C. Rolling
Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
18. Hudson,T .(2007) .Teaching second language reading. Oxford University Press.
19. Johnston.P, (1984). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension test bias. Reading Research Quarterly.
19(2).219-239 .
20. Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Mesite, L. M., Asher, C. A., Relyea, J. E.,Fitzgerald, J., & Elmore, J. (2021).
Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-
grade content literacy intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 3–26.
21. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
22. Knuth.R.A. and B.F. Jones. (1991) What Does Research Say About Reading? Retrieved 25 November,
2011. From
Http://Www. Ncrel. Org/Sdrs Areas/Stw_Esys/Str_Read.Htm.
23. Lin. Y.C, Y.T. Lin and Huang. Y.M. (2011).Development of a Diagnostic System Using A Testing-Based
Approach for Strengthening Student Prior Knowledge. Computers and Education, 57. P 1557-1570.
24. Lipson, M. Y. (1982). Learning New Information from Text: The Role of Prior Knowledge and Reading
Ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(3), 243–261.
25. MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1992). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests. Toronto, ON: Nelson.
26. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better?
Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text.
Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43.
27. Nelson, K. (1998). Language in cognitive development: The emergence of the mediated mind. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
28. Novak.J.D. and Gowin .D.B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York,Cambridge University Press.
29. Paul, R., & Norbury, C. F. (2012). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence. San Diego, CA:
Elsevier.
30. Porter. K. [ N.D].Prereading Strategies. Retrieved Among Researchers. European Journal of January 7,
2012.
Http://Departments. Weber. Psychology of Education, 10(3):
225-242.Edu/Teachall/Reading/Prereading.Html.
31. Strangman,N. and Hall .T, (2004).Background Knowledge. Retrieved January 7, 2012, from National
Center on Accessible Instructional Materials.
Http://Aim.Cast.Org/Learn/Historyarchive/Backgroundpapers/Background_Knowledge.
32. Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children: A
test of a schema. In R. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53–120).
33. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and
Instruction.
34. Tapiero, I. (2007). Situation models and levels of coherence: Toward a definition of comprehension. New
York, NY: Routledge.
35. Therrien ,W .J .(2004) .Fluency and comprehension Gains as a result of repeated learning: A meta analysis.
Remedial and special education.
36. _ Two, C. (2000). ACTIVITY. In Defining Comprehension . pp: 11-17.
37. Yuksel . Ismail.(2012). Activating students’ prior knowledge: the core strategies. World applied journal .
20( 8 ) . p 1197 – 1201 .

Grp : 03
Work made by :
- Mekhaznia Chahrazed
- Moukhtari Khadidja
- Laarbi Aissa Rahil
- Sliman Aicha
- Meghraoui Feriel
- Daoudi Hadjer