CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 326Reading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLiteracy and Educational Practices

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

Open access
Smith, Reid, Snow, Pamela, Serry, Tanya, Hammond, Lorraine·2021·Reading Psychology
DOI 10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A critical review was conducted to determine the influence background knowledge has on the reading comprehension of primary school-aged children. We identified twenty-three studies that met our criteria and focused on the links between background knowledge and reading comprehension of children in the mid to late primary years. Review findings highlight that higher levels of background knowledge have a range of effects that are influenced by the nature of the text, the quality of the situation model required, and the presence of reader misconceptions about the text. Our findings also indicate that background knowledge impacts differentially on stronger and weaker readers. Readers with lower background knowledge appear to benefit more from text with high cohesion, while weaker readers were able to compensate somewhat for their relatively weak reading skills in the context of a high degree of background knowledge. Implications of the findings for early years classroom practice are outlined, together with suggested future research directions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A good text for students' productive discussion is one for which students have sufficient background knowledge of the topic and issues addressed, which is essential for students' text comprehension.

    “A good text for students' productive discussion is one for which students have sufficient background knowledge of the topic and issues addressed, which is essential for students' text comprehension (Smith et al. 2021).”

    From The Impact of a Dialogic Intervention on a Chinese Rural Teacher and Students' Stances Towards Texts (2025) · cites this paper as Smith et al. 2021

    The Introduction and ‘The Role of the Text’ (pages unavailable) describe background knowledge as important to reading comprehension. ‘Recommendations for Practice and Future Research’ links it to text selection, but does not address productive discussion; it recommends texts that are challenging without making comprehension impossible, rather than simply requiring sufficient prior knowledge. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 104 · Cited by 326

Research works printed but not linked: 83

  1. 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:10.1080/01638539509544943 · DOI
  2. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. Handbook of Reading Research, 3(1), 285-310.
  3. Barnes, M. A., Dennis, M., & Haefele-Kalvaitis, J. (1996). The effects of know- ledge availability and knowledge accessibility on coherence and elaborative inferencing in children from six to fifteen years of age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61(3), 216-241. doi:10.1006/jecp.1996.0015 · DOI
  4. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Research directions: Social studies texts are hard to understand: Mediating some of the difficulties. Language Arts, 68(6), 482-490.
  5. 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:10.2307/747566 · DOI
  6. Berkowitz, S., & Taylor, B. (1981). The effects of text type and familiarity on the nature of information recalled by readers. In M. Kamil (Ed.), Directions in reading: Research and instruction (pp. 157-161). Washington, DC: National reading Conference.
  7. 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:10.1080/02702710801963951 · DOI
  8. Borges, A. T. (1999). Como evoluem os modelos mentais. Ensaio Pesquisa em Educac ¸ão em Ciências (Belo Horizonte), 1(1), 66-92. doi:10.1590/1983-21171999010107 · DOI
  9. Bowyer-Crane, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2005). Assessing children's inference gener- ation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 189-201. doi:10.1348/000709904X22674 · DOI
  10. Brandão, A. C. P., & Oakhill, J. (2005). How do you know this answer?"- Children's use of text data and general knowledge in story comprehension. Reading and Writing, 18(7-9), 687-713. doi:10.1007/s11145-005-5600-x · DOI
  11. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to com- prehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11(5/6), 489-503. doi:10.1023/A:1008084120205 · DOI
  12. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 850-859. doi:10.3758/bf03196414 · DOI
  13. Callahan, D., & Drum, P. A. (1984). Reading ability and prior knowledge as pre- dictors of eleven and twelve year olds' text comprehension. Reading Psychology, 5(1-2), 145-154. doi:10.1080/0270271840050117 · DOI
  14. Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5-51. doi:10.1177/1529100618772271 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Cervetti, G. N., Wright, T. S., & Hwang, H. (2016). Conceptual coherence, com- prehension, and vocabulary acquisition: A knowledge effect? Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29(4), 761-779.
  16. Chiesi, H. L., Spilich, G. J., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(3), 257-273. doi:10.1016/S0022- 5371(79)90146-4 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934-935. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.33.6.934 · DOI
  18. Dewitz, P., Carr, E., & Patberg, J. (1987). Effects of inference training on compre- hension and comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(1), 99-121.
  19. 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 · DOI
  20. Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehen- sion. New York: Routledge New York.
  21. Elleman, A. M. (2017). Examining the impact of inference instruction on the lit- eral and inferential comprehension of skilled and less skilled readers: A meta- analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 761-781. doi:10. 1037/edu0000180 · DOI
  22. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211-245. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohe- sion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(3), 277-294. doi:10.2307/747389 · DOI
  24. Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. G. (1991). Topic knowledge, cognitive interest, and text recall: A microanalysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 59(4), 310-319. doi:10.1080/00220973.1991.10806569 · DOI
  25. Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Warren, S. F., Montgomery, J. K., Greenwood, C. R., Kimbrough Oller, D., … Paul, T. D. (2017). Mapping the early language environment using all-day recordings and automated analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(2), 248-265. doi:10.1044/2016_ AJSLP-15-0169 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Graesser, A. C., & Bertus, E. L. (1998). The construction of causal inferences while reading expository texts on science and technology. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(3), 247-269. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0203_4 · DOI
  27. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and exposi- tory text. In A. P. Sweet & C. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York: Guildford Publications.
  28. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2014). Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.
  29. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator, 27(1), 4-9.
  30. Hirsch, E. D. (2019). Why knowledge matters: Rescuing our children from failed educational theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  31. 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:10.1080/ 10862968309547493 · DOI
  32. Hua, A. N., & Keenan, J. M. (2017). Interpreting reading comprehension test results: Quantile regression shows that explanatory factors can vary with per- formance level. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(3), 225-238. doi:10.1080/ 10888438.2017.1280675 · DOI
  33. Hunt, K. W. (1965). A synopsis of clause-to-sentence length factors. The English Journal, 54(4), 300-309. doi:10.2307/811114 · DOI
  34. Johnston, P., & Pearson, P. D. (1982). Prior Knowledge, Connectivity, and the Assessment of Reading Comprehension. Technical Report. No. 245. Retrieved from Urbana-Champaign.
  35. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-447. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Kendeou, P., & Van Den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577. doi:10.3758/bf03193491 · DOI
  37. 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 lit- eracy intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 3-26. doi:10. 1037/edu0000465 · DOI
  38. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge university press.
  39. Kintsch, W. (2009). Learning and constructivism. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist Instruction: Success or failure? New York, NY: Routledge.
  40. Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394. doi:10.1037/0033-295X. 85.5.363 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Kostons, D., & van der Werf, G. (2015). The effects of activating prior topic and metacognitive knowledge on text comprehension scores. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 264-275. doi:10.1111/bjep.12069 · DOI
  42. Kraal, A., Koornneef, A. W., Saab, N., & van den Broek, P. W. (2018). Processing of expository and narrative texts by low-and high-comprehending children . Reading and Writing, 31(9), 2017-2040. doi:10.1007/s11145-017-9789-2 · DOI
  43. Langdon Sjostrom, C., & Chou Hare, V. (1984). Teaching high school students to identify main ideas in expository text. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(2), 114-118. doi:10.1080/00220671.1984.10885584 · DOI
  44. Langer, J. A. (1984). Examining background knowledge and text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), 468-481. doi:10.2307/747918 · DOI
  45. 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. doi:10.1080/10862968209547453. · DOI
  46. Marr, M. B., & Gormley, K. (1982). Children's recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(1), 89-104. doi:10.2307/747539 · DOI
  47. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading compre- hension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218-253. doi:10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1 · DOI
  48. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The con- tribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 78-93. doi:10.2307/747834 · DOI
  49. 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:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 · DOI · Paper page
  50. McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 465-482. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.465 · DOI
  51. 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 know- ledge. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 229-257.
  52. Morrison, J. M., Sullivan, F., Murray, E., & Jolly, B. (1999). Evidence-based edu- cation: Development of an instrument to critically appraise reports of educa- tional interventions. Medical Education, 33(12), 890-893. doi:10.1046/j.1365- 2923.1999.00479.x · DOI
  53. Muijselaar, M., Swart, N., Steenbeek-Planting, E., Droop, M., Verhoeven, L., & de Jong, P. (2018). The effect of a strategy training on reading comprehension in fourth-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(6), 690-703.
  54. Nelson, K. (1998). Language in cognitive development: The emergence of the medi- ated mind. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Issues of causality in children's reading compre- hension. In Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and tech- nologies (pp. 47-72). New York: Erlbaum.
  56. O'Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2015). Passive activation and instantiation of infer- ences during reading. In E. J. O'Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch Jr (Eds.), Inferences during reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  57. Olson, M. W. (1985). Text type and reader ability: The effects on paraphrase and text-based inference questions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17(3), 199-214. doi:10.1080/10862968509547540 · DOI
  58. O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43(2), 121-152. doi:10.1080/01638530709336895 · DOI
  59. Paul, R., & Norbury, C. F. (2012). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
  60. Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1972). Teaching reading comprehension. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
  61. Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading compre- hension skill. In The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227-247). Milton: Blackwell Publishing.
  62. Ramsay, C. M., Sperling, R. A., & Dornisch, M. M. (2010). A comparison of the effects of students' expository text comprehension strategies. Instructional Science, 38(6), 551-570. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9081-6 · DOI
  63. Rapp, D. N., Broek, P. v. d., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289-312. doi:10.1080/10888430701530417 · DOI
  64. 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 · DOI
  65. 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:10.1080/0270271900110202 · DOI
  66. Rumelhart, D. E. (2017). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). London: Routledge.
  67. Spilich, G., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Test processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 80, 275-290.
  68. Spiro, R. J., & Taylor, B. M. (1987). On investigating children's transition from narrative to expository discourse: The multidimensional nature of psychological text classification. In J. Tierney, P. L. Anders, & J. N. Mitchell (Eds.), Understanding readers' understanding: Theory and practice (pp. 77-93).
  69. Stahl, S. A., & Jacobson, M. G. (1986). Vocabulary difficulty, prior knowledge, and text comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18(4), 309-323. doi: 10.1080/10862968609547578 · DOI
  70. 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). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  71. Stevens, E. A., Park, S., & Vaughn, S. (2019). A review of summarizing and main idea interventions for struggling readers in grades 3 through 12: 1978-2016. Remedial and Special Education, 40(3), 131-149. doi:10.1177/0741932517749940 · DOI
  72. Strutt, L. (2011). Teacher understandings of responsibilities for reading instruction in stage one and two English courses of study in Western Australian schools. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Edith Cowan University, Perth.
  73. 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:10.1080/10862968509547537 · DOI
  74. Tapiero, I. (2007). Situation models and levels of coherence: Toward a definition of comprehension. New York, NY: Routledge.
  75. Taylor, B. M. (1979). Good and poor readers' recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(4), 375-380. doi:10.1080/10862967909547343 · DOI
  76. Van Dijk, T. A., Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  77. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 123-183. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1801_4 · DOI
  78. Walker, C. H. (1987). Relative importance of domain knowledge and overall apti- tude on acquisition of domain-related information. Cognition and Instruction, 4(1), 25-42. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0401_2 · DOI
  79. Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K. D. (2004). Teaching expository text structure to young at-risk learners: Building the basics of comprehension instruction. Exceptionality, 12(3), 129-144. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1203_2 · DOI
  80. Willingham, D. T. (2006). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading compre- hension strategies. American Educator, 30(4), 39-50.
  81. Wolfe, M. B., & Woodwyk, J. M. (2010). Processing and memory of information presented in narrative or expository texts. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(Pt 3), 341-362. doi:10.1348/000709910X485700 · DOI
  82. Yekovich, F. R., Walker, C. H., Ogle, L. T., & Thompson, M. A. (1990). The influence of domain knowledge on inferencing in low-aptitude individuals. In A. C. Graesser & G. H. Bower (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 25, pp. 259-278). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  83. Yochum, N. (1991). Children's learning from informational text: The relationship between prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(1), 87-108. doi:10.1080/10862969109547728 · DOI

Authors
Smith, R., Snow, P., Serry, T., & Hammond, L.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • Edith Cowan University (AU)
Corresponding author
Smith, Reid
ORCID
Venue
Reading Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-02-22
Volume
42
Issue
3
Pages
214-240
ISSN
  • 0270-2711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-0685
DOI
10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348
OpenAlex
W3137333118
Cited by
326
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 67 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 10
FWCI
65.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Reading Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • La Trobe University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
Keywords
prior knowledge, reading comprehension, elementary school students, situation model, textual cohesion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review