K-W-L: A Teaching Model That Develops Active Reading of Expository Text

Author(s): Donna M. Ogle

Source: The Reading Teacher, Vol. 39, No. 6 (Feb., 1986), pp. 564-570
Published by: International Reading Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199156 .
Accessed: 17/07/2011 18:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
International Reading Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Reading Teacher.
http://www.jstor.org
K-W-L: A
teaching
model
that
develops
active
reading
of
expository
text
This
simple procedure helps
teachers become
more
responsive
to students'
knowledge
and interests when
reading expositor];
material,
and it models
for
students the active
thinking
involved
in
reading for information.
Donna M.
Ogle
Prior
knowledge
is
extremely impor
tant in
influencing
how we
interpret
what we read and what we learn from
reading (Anderson, 1977).
To read
well,
we must access the
knowledge
we
already
have about the
topic,
or
make it available
appropriately
so that
comprehension
can occur
(Anderson
and
Pichert, 1978; Bransford, 1983).
Despite
the research
highlighting
the
importance
of this
prior knowledge
and
many
calls for more interactive
teaching,
the
reading "scripts"
used for
teaching
children to read in schools too
often
ignore
the
importance
of what
the children
bring
to
reading.
Teachers
are instructed to
begin by telling
chil
dren the
gist
of what
they
are
going
to
read about and
why they
should read
this
particular
information. Even when
there are directions for teachers to find
out what the children
already
know
about the
topic,
teachers often over
look this instruction. As Durkin's
classroom observations demonstrated
(1984),
the most
neglected part
of
reading
lessons is that which instructs
teachers to elicit children's
background
knowledge.
To
help
teachers honor what chil
dren
bring
to each
reading
situation
and model for their students the
impor
tance of
accessing appropriate
knowl
edge
sources before
reading,
we have
developed
a
simple procedure
that can
be used with nonfiction selections at
any grade
level and in
any content,
whether in
reading groups
or in con
tent
learning
situations.
We have found that the
simplicity
of
instructional demands on
them makes
teachers
readily try
out this
technique
and then
incorporate
it into their
regu
lar routines.
(See Duffy
for a
descrip
564 The
Reading
Teacher
February
1986
K-W-L
strategy
sheet
K?What we know
W?What we want
to find out
2.
Categories
of information we
expect
to use
A. E.
B. F.
C. G.
D.
L?What we learned and
still need to learn
tion of this
need, 1983.)
The
response
of children to the
technique
has been
most
enthusiastic,
and informal evalu
ations
by
teachers have confirmed for
teachers the
power
of this
simple pro
cedure.
A
logical three-step procedure
We have named this
three-step proce
dure the K-W-L for the three basic
cognitive steps required: accessing
what I
Know,
determining
what I Want
to
learn,
and
recalling
what I did Learn
as a result of
reading.
To facilitate both
the
group process
and to instill in stu
dents the concreteness of the
steps,
we
developed
a worksheet
(see
sample)
that each child uses
during
the think
ing-reading process.
For the first two
steps
of the
process
the teacher and students
engage
in oral
discussion followed
by
students'
per
sonal
responses
on their worksheets.
In the third
step
students can either fill
out the "What I learned" section as
they
read or
do so
immediately
follow
ing
the
completion
of the
article;
the
discussion follows the individual re
sponses.
In
long
articles the teacher
may
re
flect with students section
by section,
reviewing
what has been learned and
directing questions
for further
reading.
Step
K-What I know. This
opening step
has two levels of access
ing prior knowledge.
(1)
The first is
a
straightforward
brainstorming
of what the
group
knows about the
topic
for
reading.
During
this
step
the teacher's role is to
record whatever the students volunteer
about the
topic
on the board or an
overhead
projector.
The critical com
ponent
here is to select a
key concept
for the
brainstorming
that is
specific
enough
to
generate
the kinds of infor
mation that will be
pertinent
to the
reading.
For
example,
when the class will
read about sea
turtles,
use the words
sea turtles as the
stimulus,
not "What
do
you
know about animals that live in
the sea?" or "Have
you
ever been to the
ocean?" A
general
discussion of
enjoy
able
experiences
on the beach
may
never elicit the
pertinent
schemata.
The
brainstorming
that
precedes
reading
needs to have as its
goal
the
activation of whatever
knowledge
or
structures the readers have that will
help
them
interpret
what
they
read.
If there
appears
to be little knowl
edge
of sea turtles in
your
students' ex
perience,
then ask the next more
general question,
"What do
you
know
about turtles?" At this level no
group
will lack
knowledge.
As students vol
unteer
information, you
can
help
them
begin
to
question
if the
knowledge
or
information shared is true of all turtles
or
only specific
kinds.
K-W-L: A
teaching
model 565
The stimulation of
questions,
of un
certainties,
is a
key part
of the brain
storming
that
goes
on
prior
to
reading.
All of us
carry
around some
vague
and
ill defined
schemata;
opportunities
to
talk about what we think we
know,
to
put
our bits of
memory
into order can
really help
us discover what we don't
know.
The
way
of
deepening
student think
ing during
this initial
brainstorming
is
to ask
volunteers,
after
they
have made
their
contributions,
"Where did
you
learn that?" or "How could
you prove
that?"
By
not
simply accepting
the
statements that students offer but
prob
ing
to make them think about the
sources and substantiveness of their
suggestions,
you challenge
both con
tributors and the rest of the class to a
higher
level of
thinking.
This extended
questioning
also
helps
other students
feel freer to
provide contradictory
pieces
of information that can then be
confirmed
through
the
reading.
(2)
The second
part
of the brain
storming (or eliciting
what is
already
known)
that will be useful to students
in
reading
involves them in
thinking
of
the more
general categories
of infor
mation
likely
to be encountered when
they
read. We
say
"Before we read this
article on sea
turtles,
let's think awhile
about what kinds of information are
most
likely
to be included. Look at this
list of
things
we
already
know: Do
some of them fit
together
to form a
general category
of information?"
When teachers and students
begin
using
the K-W-L
they
often find this
question perplexing; they
are unaccus
tomed to
being
asked to think in con
tent-structuring
terms. To
help
them
begin
to think in these
categorical
terms,
we
begin by modeling
one or
two
examples
from the information
they
have
already generated.
For
example,
the teacher
might say
"I see three different
pieces
of informa
tion about how turtles look.
Descrip
tion or looks is
certainly
one
category
of information I would
expect
this ar
ticle to include."
(S/he
then writes this
category description,
or "how sea tur
tles
look,"
under the
Categories
of In
formation
heading.)
The teacher
proceeds,
"Can
you
find another cate
gory
from the information we've vol
unteered?"
After some oral
modeling
and exam
ples,
students
generally begin
to think
of
categories
that can be added to the
list. If
they
do
not,
the teacher has
good diagnostic
data about their readi
ness for this level of
thinking. Having
students read similar articles will
help
them
begin
to build a
background
un
derstanding
for the content area that
can serve them in their future
reading
and
learning.
For
example,
if students can't
gener
ate
likely categories
to be included in
an article on sea
turtles,
studying
other
articles on animals will
help
them
identify
and
anticipate key categories:
description,
care and nurture of
young,
enemies, habitat,
protective
devices,
eating
habits,
and
special
characteris
tics that
distinguish
it. Children can
then use this
knowledge
of
general
cat
egories
of information to store their
new
specific
data about whatever ani
mal
they
are
studying.
Step
W-What do I want to
learn? As students take time to think
about what
they already
know about
the
topic
and the
general categories
of
information that should be
anticipated,
questions emerge.
Not all students
agree
on the same
pieces
of informa
tion;
some information is
conflicting;
some of the
categories
have had no
particular
information
provided.
All this
prereading activity develops
the students' own reasons for
reading
?
reading
to find answers to
questions
that will increase their reservoir of
knowledge
on this
topic.
The teacher's
role in this
stage
is central. S/he must
highlight
their
disagreements
and
gaps
in information and
help
the students
raise
questions
that focus their atten
566 The
Reading
Teacher
February
1986
tion and
energize
their
reading.
The
majority
of
Step
W is done as a
group activity,
but before students be
gin
to
read,
each writes down on his/
her own worksheet the
specific
questions
that he/she is most interested
in
having
answered as a result of the
discussion. In this
way
each student
develops
a
personal
commitment that
will
guide
the
reading.
Once each student has focused
per
sonally
on this
topic, reading
may
commence.
However,
if it is a
long
ar
ticle or one that does not follow a basic
pattern,
it
may
be useful to
preview
the
article to discern the match between
the students'
expectations
and the ac
tual construction of the article. Then
difficult
or
unclear sections
may
be
noted for them.
Again, depending
on the
length
and
complexity
of the
article,
it
may
be
read in one
piece
or with some inter
mediate
steps
for reflection.
Step
L-What I learned. After
completing
the
article,
direct the stu
dents to write down what
they
learned
from
reading.
Have them check their
questions
to determine if the article
dealt with their concerns. If
not,
sug
gest
further
reading
to fulfill their de
sires to know. In this
way, you
are
setting
the clear
priority
of their
per
sonal desire to learn over
simply taking
in what the author has chosen to in
clude.
Each reader should have the
oppor
.
tunity
of
having
his/her
questions
an
swered or at least addressed. This is
what
reading
is
really
about!
By
hav
ing specific questions prior
to
reading,
students can also better
judge
the kinds
of variations that do exist in different
articles
they
read. Some will be more
pertinent
to their
particular
concerns
than others and it is
good
for students
to
develop
more critical awareness of
the limitations of all author-reader in
teractions. Readers need to be in
charge
in their
learning
and
actively
pursue
their own
quest
for
knowledge.
Transcript
of a K-W-L lesson
To make more concrete how the
proc
ess
actually
works, part
of a
transcript
from a fourth
grade
lesson is included
here. The article
being
read,
"The
Black
Widow,"
came from a children's
magazine.
It was
being
read as
part
of
a unit on
animals.
Teacher:
Today
we're
going
to read an
other article about animals. This one
is about a
special
kind of
spider?the
Black Widow. Before we
begin
the
article,
let's think about what we al
ready
know about Black Widows. Or
if
you
aren't familiar with this kind
of
spider,
think about some
things
you
know about
spiders
in
general,
and we can
then see if those are also
true for the Black Widow.
[Teacher
writes Black Widow
spider
on the
board and waits while students think
about their
knowledge
of
spiders.
Next she elicits ideas from children
and writes their contributions on the
board.]
Tony: Spiders
have six
legs.
Susan:
They
eat other insects.
Eddie: I think
they're big
and
danger
ous
spiders.
Teacher: Can
you
add more about what
you
mean when
you say they're big
and
dangerous?
Eddie:
They, they,
I think
they
eat
other
spiders.
I think
people
are
afraid of
them,
too.
Steph: They spin
nests or webs to
catch other insects in.
Tom:
My
cousin
got stung by
one once
and almost died.
Teacher: You mean
they
can be dan
gerous
to
people?
Tom:
Yah, my
cousin had to
go
to the
hospital.
Teacher: Does
anyone
else know more
about the Black Widow?
Tammy?
Tammy:
I don't think
they
live around
here. I've never heard of
anyone
be
ing stung by
one.
Teacher: Where do Black Widows
live? Does
anyone
know?
[She
waits.]
What else do we know about
K-W-L: A
teaching
model 567
spiders?
John: I think I saw a TV show about
them once.
They
have a
special
mark on their back. I think it's a blue
triangle
or
circle,
or
something
like
that. If
people
look,
they
can tell if
the
spider's
a Black Widow or not.
Teacher: Does
anyone
else recall
any
thing
more about how
they
look?
[She waits.]
Look at what we've al
ready
said about these
spiders.
Can
you
think of other information we
should add?
John: I think
they
kill their babies or
men
spiders.
I'm not sure which.
Teacher: Do
you
remember where
you
learned that?
John: I think I read an article once.
Teacher:
OK,
let's add that to our list.
Remember,
everything
on the list we
aren't sure of we can doublecheck
when we
read.
Teacher:
Anything
more
you
think
you
know about these
spiders? [She
waits.] OK,
before we read this ar
ticle let's think awhile about the
kinds or
categories
of information
that are
likely
to be included. Look
at the list of
things
we
already
know
or have
questions
about. Which of
the
categories
of information have
we
already
mentioned?
Peter: We mentioned how
they
look.
Teacher:
Yes,
we said
they're big
and
have six
legs.
And someone said
they
think Black Widows have a col
ored mark on them.
Good,
descrip
tion is one of the main
categories
of
information we want to learn about
when we read about animals or in
sects. What other
categories
of in
formation have we mentioned that
should be included?
Anna: Where
they
live;
but we aren't
sure.
Teacher:
Good,
we should find out
where
they
live. What other kinds of
information should we
expect
to
learn from the article? Think about
what kinds of information we've
learned from other articles about an
imals.
Diane: We want to know what kind of
homes
they
make.
Raul: What do
they
eat?
Andy:
How
they protect
themselves.
Cara: How do
they
have babies? How
many
do
they
have?
Teacher: Good
thinking.
Are there
other
categories
of information we
expect
to learn about.
[She waits.]
We've
thought
about what we al
ready
know and what kinds of infor
mation we're
likely
to learn from an
article on Black Widow
spiders.
Now what are some of the
questions
we want to have answered? I know
we had some
things
we weren't sure
about,
like where these
spiders
live.
What are some of the
things you'd
like to find out when we read?
Cara: I want to know how
many baby
spiders get
born.
Rico: Do Black Widows
really
hurt
people?
I never heard of
that,
and
my
dad knows a lot about
spiders.
Andy: Why
are
they
called Black Wid
ows? What's a widow?
Teacher: Good
question!
Does
anyone
know what a widow is?
Why
would
this
spider
be called a "Black
Widow"?
[After eliciting questions
from sev
eral
students,
the teacher asks each
child to write their own
questions
on
their
worksheet.]
What are the
ques
tions
you're
most interested in hav
ing
answered? Write them down
now. As
you read,
look for the an
swers and
jot
them down
on
your
worksheet as
you go,
or other infor
mation
you
don't want to
forget.
[The
students read the
article.]
Teacher: How did
you
like this article?
What did
you
learn?
Raul: The Black Widow eats her hus
band and sometimes her babies.
Yuck! I don't think I like that kind of
spider!
Steph: They
can live here ?it
says they
live in all
parts
of the United States.
Andy: They
can be
recognized by
an
568 The
Reading
Teacher
February
1986
hourglass
that is red
or
yellow
on
their abdomen.
Teacher: What is another word for ab
domen*}
[She waits.] Sara,
please
look
up
the word abdomen. Let's
find out where the
hourglass shape
is located. While Sara is
looking
that
word
up,
let's check what we learned
against
the
questions
we wanted an
swered. Are there some
questions
that didn't
get
answered? What more
do we want to know?
And so the discussion
goes
on,
helping
children relate what
they already
knew
about
spiders
and animal articles
gen
erally
to what was included in the ar
ticle
they
read in class.
The teacher also
helps
students
keep
the control of their own
inquiry,
ex
tending
the
pursuit
of
knowledge
be
yond just
the one article. The teacher
is
making
clear that
learning
shouldn't
be framed around
just
what an author
chooses to
include,
but that it involves
the identification of the learner's
ques
tions and the search for authors or ar
ticles
dealing
with those
questions.
Indications that K-W-L works well
Does this
strategy
for
group
instruc
tion
really
work? Does it
help
children
become more interactive readers and
help
them learn more as
they
read?
Positive answers to these
questions
have come from a
variety
of informal
evaluations done
by
teachers with
whom we have worked. Because we
wanted the teachers to
engage
in their
own
evaluations,
we made
suggestions
for evaluation and asked them to con
struct
ways
to evaluate the K-W-L.
One of the
simplest
forms of evalua
tion teachers used was to ask students
at the end of the term which of the ar
ticles
they
had read
they
remembered.
The
followup probe
asked
specifically
what
they
recalled
learning.
Over
whelmingly,
the articles and resource
materials
taught using
the K-W-L are
well remembered and recalled.
One
principal
who was involved in
the
training
of her teachers
using
this
strategy
interviewed students at the
end of the term herself. She was
amazed
by
the
high
level of recall of all
the articles the teacher had taken time
to
develop using
the K-W-L
strategy.
Now in answer to
questions
about the
amount of time the
strategy took,
she
confidently
answers that if we want the
students to learn the
content,
then it
isn't time
consuming
at
all;
other strat
egies
too often leave
no evidence of
learning.
Other teachers have
kept
the stu
dents' worksheets from the
beginning
of the
year
and then
compared
them to
work done later
on,
to evaluate the
changes.
These
comparisons
have
been valuable for
they
demonstrate
both that students are more able to
elicit their own
prior knowledge
with
experience
and that
they
can use writ
ing
as a useful
adjunct.
The worksheet
analyses
also demon
strate the
changes
in the kinds of con
tent
categories
students draw on.
Initially, asking
the
question
of what
categories
of information children ex
pect
drew blanks from
many
students
because
they
were so unfamiliar with
this kind of
thinking.
However,
with
experience
and
guidance
from their
teachers,
children's work made it clear
that
they
are
very capable
of
making
connections
among
the different kinds
of resources
they
have
already
availa
ble in their
experiences.
In
addition,
examples
from class
have
helped
them build a
better under
standing
of the
key categories
used
by
authors in
many
different fields.
Teachers noted much more
sophisti
cated
category
lists in the later work
sheets after
experience
with the
K-W-L.
Informal evaluation has also come
through analyses
of
videotapes
of
classrooms made at different
points
during
the
year. Tapes permit
teachers
to monitor both their own
development
in
teaching
and the
changes
in their
K-W-L: A
teaching
model 569
students.
Group processes
are hard for
teachers to reflect on as
they
occur,
so
the
videotape provides
a wonderful ret
rospective.
The number of students
participating generally
shows real
gains
over
time;
the
quality
of their
thinking improves;
and the involve
ment in and enthusiasm for
reading
nonfiction
goes
from lukewarm to re
ally
keen.
Perhaps
the
strongest
data
support
ing
teachers' efforts to use K-W-L in
their
teaching
came
directly
from the
children. Several teachers
reported
that their students asked them "Can we
do this article or
chapter
with the K
W-L?" When the teachers wouldn't
take the time to use the
process ap
proach,
students missed it! Other
teachers
reported
that students
began
to use the
strategy independently (ob
viously
the
goal
of
teaching)
when
they
were
reading
for content
learning
or
doing reports.
One teacher involved her students as
teachers of
younger
children to find
out how well
they
had learned the strat
egy. They
could use the basic
steps
and
help younger
children learn more ac
tively.
Another interviewed her chil
dren and asked them what
they thought
was
important
about the
way
she was
helping
them read. One to the
point
answer was "You think it is
important
what we
think;
not
just
what the book
says."
Without
exception,
the teachers
pi
loting
this
strategy
have
reported
that
when children have
questions they
are
reading
to
answer,
they
read
noisily
?
that
is,
when
they
come to
key
sections
of the
text,
they
often
unconsciously
but
audibly respond
with
"ahs," "ohs,"
and "ums."
This
strategy
has been
developed
so
that students can learn
through
the
classroom
group experience
how to be
come better
expository
readers. At the
same
time,
it has
taught
teachers more
about the interactive nature of
reading
and the
importance
of
personal
in
volvement
before,
during,
and after
reading.
K-W-L could use further
rigorous
evaluation.
However,
work with teach
ers has confirmed that it can be evalu
ated
by practitioners
in their own
classrooms without elaborate tests and
that it can
help
in our common at
tempts
to
produce
more
thoughtful
and
enthusiastic readers for the future.
Ogle
directs the Graduate
Program of
Reading
and
Language
Arts at Na
tional
College of
Education at Evan
ston, Illinois. She
developed
the
teaching strategy
described here
for
use in school districts in the
Chicago
area.
References
Anderson,
Richard C "The Notion of Schemata and the
Educational
Enterprise."
In
Schooling
and the
Acquisi
tion of
Knowledge,
edited
by
Richard C
Anderson,
Rand J.
Spiro,
and William E.
Montague. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum,
1977.
Anderson, Richard
C,
and James W. Pichert. "Recall of
Previously
Unrecallable Information
Following
a Shift
in
Perspective."
Journal of Verbal
Learning
and Verbal
Behavior,
vol. 17
(February 1978), pp.
1-12.
Bransford,
John. "Schema Activation?Schema
Acquisi
tion." In
Learning
to Read in American
Schools,
edited
by
Richard C.
Anderson,
Jean
Osborn,
and Robert C
Tierney. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum,
1983.
Duffy,
Gerald G. From Turn
Taking
to Sense
Making:
Class
room Factors and
Improved Reading
Achievement. Oc
casional
Paper
No. 59. East
Lansing,
Mich.: Institute
for Research on
Teaching, Michigan
State
University,
1983.
Durkin,
Dolores. "Is There a Match Between What Ele
mentary
Teachers Do and What Basal Reader Manuals
Recommend?" The
Reading Teacher,
vol. 37
(April
1984), pp.
734-44.
570 The
Reading
Teacher
February
1986