Here’s a charming group of second graders singing the “Background Knowledge Song” to the tune of Oh My Darling, Clementine.
The words are a little difficult to understand, which might indicate the kids themselves aren’t entirely clear on the lyrics. But the ditty seems to be a reading strategies lesson, reminding the kids to “check my schema” when they read to ensure comprehension.
“Think about all the things I know about the text before I read.
Building schema really helps me comprehend the words I read.
While I’m reading, I keep thinking ‘Does what I read make sense to me?’
If it doesn’t I check my schema, then I re-read carefully.
“Building schema, building schema
I do it every time I read.
Because it gives me background knowledge
For the next books that I read”
I don’t wish to be overly critical of an earnest attempt to make kids better readers. But does it really help second graders’ comprehension to toss around (let alone sing about) terms like “building schema?” I’m skeptical. The word itself is more jargon than vocabulary. Call it the Lipnicki Effect. It’s cute, funny and sometimes impressive to hear arcane facts and fancy words come out of the mouths of small children, but is there any educational value? Perhaps the better question is what’s the better use of instructional time: teaching kids to activate their background knowledge when they read? Or actually building background knowledge?
Sorry, I meant schema.