Prior Knowledge is Concrete

I think that Zull did a wonderful job of summarizing the ten key points of chapter 6 on pages 108 and 109. I have heard the phrase "prior knowledge" countless times throughout the last year, and  I have been told endlessly that in order to teach a concept you must first "activate a student's prior knowledge." But what is prior knowledge? If I want to teach my students how to solve linear equations, I know that they need to understand multiplication and division beforehand (which is something I feel that I shouldn't have to review before teaching them how to solve linear equations). This seems like common sense. But prior knowledge is so much more than this. Prior knowledge, as stated in Zull chapter 6, is the physical connection of the neuronal networks in our brain. Prior knowledge is not an abstract idea that we expect our students to magically have, it is a concrete connection in the brains of each of our students; and chances are, the connections and prior knowledge are different in each student's brain. Each student is bringing something different to the table. If a student has understood multiplication incorrectly, then the concrete connections in his or her brain have been formed on the basis of incorrect information. Before I can teach that student how to solve linear equations, I must first address the issue of incorrect understanding of multiplication. It would be counterproductive for me to ignore the prior knowledge of my students if there is a problem that I need to address before moving to more complex material.

I also think that Zull's discussion of "the concrete" is very interesting. Zull suggests that "the neuronal networks formed when we sense the outside world are most likely to be similar in each of us; they are created from the same source-the physical world" (p. 102). This neuronal network based on the concrete, outside world is formed prior to our interpretation. So the knowledge forms on the basis of the concrete, which is then left up to the interpretation of the individual. Zull suggests that it is important for the teacher to start with the concrete and then move to the more abstract and theoretical aspects of content. It seems to make so much sense, but this isn't always the way I have approached my lessons. I usually make the real world connection at the end, after the abstract and theory based discussions and learning. After reading this information and better understanding how prior knowledge and neuronal networks are formed, I think it is definitely worth it to try to start a new lesson with a real world example so that the students form their network based on concrete information.