The Role of Background Knowledge in Reading Comprehension: A Critical Review

Figures & data

Figure 1. Number of included studies before and after eligibility screening.

Table 1. Methodological Characteristics by Study

	Text genre	Researcher developed texts?	Sample Size N	School Year	Reader type	Background measure type						Researcher developed background measure?	PreTest Reading Measure	PostTest reading measure									Researcher developed reading measure?
						Multi- choice	Cloze	Background Knowledge intervention	Free Association	Woodcock- Johnson III	Open Ended Questions			Retell	Multi- Choice	Cloze	Reenactment	Summary sentence	T/F	Free Association	Woodcock- Johnson III	Open Ended Questions
Adams et al. (1995)	NARR	Y	106	4-7	N	Y	Y					Y	CAT	Y								Y	Y
Beck et al. (1982)	NARR	A	48	3	N			Y					WRA	Y	Y								Y
Best et al. (2008)	NARR/EXP		61	3	N					Y			WJIII	Y	Y								Y
Callahan and Drum (1984)	EXP	A	20	5-6	A				Y			Y	CAT. MAT	Y		Y		Y					Y
Cervetti et al. (2016)	EXP	Y	59	4	N	Y						Y	–	Y								Y	Y
Connor et al. (2017)	EXP	Y	418	K-4	N			Y					WJIII			Y					Y		Y
DeWitz et al. (1987)	EXP		101	5	N	Y						Y	ITBS		Y								Y
Freebody and Anderson (1983)	EXP	Y	88	6	N								U					Y	Y				Y
Holmes (1983)	EXP	Y	56	5	N						Y	Y	–									Y	Y
Kim et al. (2021)	EXP	Y	674	1	N			Y				Y	MAP, D	Y	Y					Y		Y
Langer (1984)	EXP		161	6	N				Y			Y	ITBS									Y	Y
Lipson (1982)	EXP	A	28	3	N								U		Y								Y
Marr and Gormley (1982)	EXP	Y	33	4	N						Y	Y	MAT									Y	Y
McKeown et al. (1992)	EXP	Y	48	5	N			Y					MAT	Y								Y	Y
McKeown et al. (2009)	NARR/EXP		119	5	N								TN, WJIII	Y		Y							Y
McNamara et al. (2011)	NARR/EXP	A	65	4	N					Y			WJIII	Y	Y								Y
McNamara et al. (1996)	EXP	A	36	4 − 6	N	Y						Y	–	Y	Y								Y
Pearson and Johnson (1979)	EXP	Y	20	2	A	Y						Y	MAT		Y								Y
Recht and Leslie (1988)	NARR	Y	64	7 − 8	N	Y						Y	SRA	Y			Y						Y
Reutzel and Morgan (1990)	EXP	A	168	5-6	N				Y			Y	GM	Y	Y	Y							Y
Stahl and Jacobson (1986)	EXP		61	6	N			Y					GM		Y		Y						Y
Taft and Leslie (1985)	EXP	Y	57	3	N				Y			Y	–	Y	Y								Y
Yochum (1991)	EXP	Y	90	5	N to A	Y						Y	U		Y								Y

Key.

Text Genre: EXP = Expository, NARR = Narrative.

Researcher Developed texts: Y = Yes, A = Adapted version created.

Reader Type: N = Normal range, A = Above average.

Pretest Reading Measure: MAT = Massachusetts Achievement Test, ITBS = Iowa Test of Basic Skills, CAT = California Achievement Test.

WJIII = Woodcock-Johnson III, SPR = Scientific Research Associates achievement comprehension subtest, GM = Gates-MacGinitie Test, TN = Terra Nova reading comprehension test, D = Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, MAP = Measures of Academic Progress, U = unspecified standardized assessment.

Figure 2. Differences in the effects of background knowledge for above and below average readers on textbase and situation model quality.

Adams, B. C., Bell, L. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1995). A trading relationship between reading skill and domain knowledge in children's text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 20(3), 307–323. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544943

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). An instructional redesign of reading lessons: Effects on comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(4), 462–481. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/747566

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137–164. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710801963951

 Google Scholar

Callahan, D., & Drum, P. A. (1984). Reading ability and prior knowledge as predictors of eleven and twelve year olds' text comprehension. Reading Psychology, 5(1–2), 145–154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271840050117

 Google Scholar

Cervetti, G. N., Wright, T. S., & Hwang, H. (2016). Conceptual coherence, comprehension, and vocabulary acquisition: A knowledge effect? Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29(4), 761–779.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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 knowledge in kindergarten through fourth grade: Conceptualization, design, implementation, and efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI). Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 301–319. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000128

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(3), 277–294. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/747389

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Holmes, B. C. (1983). The effect of prior knowledge on the question answering of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(4), 1–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968309547493

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000465

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marr, M. B., & Gormley, K. (1982). Children's recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(1), 89–104. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/747539

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 78–93. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/747834

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253. doi:https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., & Floyd, R. G. (2011). Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers' prior knowledge. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 229–257.

 Google Scholar

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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reutzel, D. R., & Morgan, B. C. (1990). Effects of prior knowledge, explicitness, and clause order on children's comprehension of causal relationships. Reading Psychology, 11(2), 93–114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271900110202

 Google Scholar

Stahl, S. A., & Jacobson, M. G. (1986). Vocabulary difficulty, prior knowledge, and text comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18(4), 309–323. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968609547578

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Taft, M. L., & Leslie, L. (1985). The effects of prior knowledge and oral reading accuracy on miscues and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17(2), 163–179. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968509547537

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar