Article.2.Peterson

7/30/2019 Article.2.Peterson

1/13

Spring 1998, Written Language: Reading

SCHEMA THEORY

AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EFL CLASSROOM

James Peterson

Peterson, J . A.., 1998. Schema theory and its implications for the EFL classroom. Unpublished MA Assignment. Universityof Reading, England.


2/13

SCHEMA THEORY


Table of Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

What is schema theory? ....................................................................... 1

Background knowledge ...................................................................... 3

Top-down vs. Bottom-up ..................................................................... 5

Explaining reading difficulties ............................................................ 7

Implications for the EFL classroom .................................................... 8

Conclusion ........................................................................................... 10

References ............................................................................................ 11


3/13

1

SCHEMA THEORY


Introduction

In this paper I will describe two versions of schema theory and discuss the

implications these different versions have for the foreign language classroom. I will argue

that the top-down model proposed by Goodman (1975), has several weaknesses. In its

place I will suggest that reading be viewed as an interactive process, with both bottom-up

and top-down processes contributing to the readers comprehension.

What is schema theory?

The basic premise of schema theory is that text is ambiguous. As Carrell and

Eisterhold (1983) write,

... text, any text, whether written or spoken, does not by itself carry meaning. Rather,

according to schema theory, a text only provides directions for listeners or readers as to

how they should retrieve or construct meaning from their own, previously acquired knowledge (p 76).

Thus, our background knowledge affects our interpretation of the text. To

illustrate, let me provide these two examples.

a) The car was too expensive.

b) The coffee was too expensive.

Our interpretation of the word expensive in sentence (a) is likely to be very

different from our interpretation of the same word in sentence (b). From our life

experiences we know the typical price of a car as well as the typical price of an expensive

car, and we know expensive coffee, in a normal world, will always be cheaper.


4/13

2

Anderson and Pearson (1984), citing a study done by Halff, Ortony and Anderson

(1976), write that a persons interpretation of the color red is different in each of the

following compounds: red strawberry , red barn , red sunset and red hair (p 52). Thus, our

background knowledge, and the context in which the word is placed, affects our

interpretation of that word.

Further, our interpretation of text is influenced by what we have read before.

Notice how the sentence, He didnt have enough money , can be interpreted differently

in the following examples.

c) The car was too expensive. He didnt have enough money

d) The coffee was too expensive. He didnt have enough money

In sentence (c), He didnt have enough money , is likely to be interpreted as he

didnt have enough savings, whereas in sentence (d) he probably has enough money at

home or in the bank, but he doesnt have enough money on him right now.

As Goodman (1975) suggests, when we read we are always trying to predict the

significance of the text, confirm our predictions and correct ourselves when we find inconsistencies between the input and our predictions (p 16). In example (a), we made a

prediction about the word expensive and in example (c) we made a prediction about the

sentence, he didnt have enough money . However, we actually made several other

predictions in those sentences, and several of those predictions might be found to be

inconsistent with the text that follows.

e) The car was too expensive. He didnt have enough money on him.

As Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) write, When we encounter a mismatch between

the top-down predictions and the bottom up information, we are forced to revise the

interpretation in such a way as to make the two compatible once again (p 79). By adding

the phrase on him , several slots in our schema might be questioned. First, we might

question the word car . What kind of car is it? Is it a Mercedes or a toy? Second, we


5/13

3

might question the word he . Is he a man or a boy, rich or not? Third, we might

question enough money . Is it several thousand pounds or a few pounds?

If we make the prediction that the word car is a Mercedes, then all of the other

information is slotted into our schema: he is a rich man; money is several thousand

pounds. However, as we see in the text below all of that information is disconfirmed as

the text continues.

e) The car was too expensive. He didnt have enough money on him. He had saved

his allowance up for a few weeks and had ten pounds to spend, but the car that he

wanted cost twelve pounds.

Suddenly, the car is a toy, he is a boy and money is ten pounds.

Thus, according to schema theory, text comprehension is more than a sum of the

definitions of words in a sentence. As Wilson and Anderson (1986) write,

The meanings of words cannot be added up to give the meaning of a text as a whole.

The click of comprehension occurs only when the reader is able to evolve a schema that

explains the whole message. (p 35)

There are two versions of schema theory which I will discuss. However, where

they both agree, is on the importance of background knowledge to the readers

comprehension.

Background Knowledge

Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) distinguish between formal schemata, knowledge of

the rhetorical organization of different texts, and content schemata, knowledge of the

content area of a text (p 79).

Briefly, formal schemata includes knowledge about the way different texts are

typically organized. If a text starts with, Once upon a time ... , we can predict that it will


6/13

4

end with some variation of, ... and they lived happily ever after . Further, we would be

very surprised if, ... they lived happily ever after, appeared in the middle of the story.

Interestingly, readers, when recalling text, may change the order of it so that it

will fit their schema. Wilson and Anderson (1986), citing Stein and Trabasso (1981),

state that when subjects read stories where the temporal events are out of sequence, the

listener or reader constructs a representation of events corresponding to the real time

order of occurrence rather than to the narrative time sequence (p 39). Thus, in trying to

make sense of the text the subjects re-ordered it so that it would fit into their schema.

The implications of formal schemata for the EFL reader are several. Scollon and

Scollon (1995) suggest that different cultures use different rhetorical structures. While a

Chinese EFL student might use a topic-comment order of presentation when speaking

or writing, a native English speaker would use a comment-topic order of presentation

(p 1-2). Thus, there may be some confusion as to what the most important part of the

message is. A Chinese EFL student, when reading an English text, may believe that the

main information is at the end, rather than the beginning. Thus, EFL students may

misinterpret the main argument of a text.

Our background knowledge also includes knowledge of content. Research into

content schemata has focused on cultural background knowledge and subject background

knowledge. In a study of cultural background knowledge Steffensen and Joag-Dev (1979)

asked American and Indian subjects to read two texts, one about an American wedding

and one about an Indian wedding. They found that subjects were better able to recall the

native text than the foreign text, produced more culturally-appropriate expansions of the

native text and produced more distortions of the foreign text (p 54). Further, subjects

were able to read the native text faster than the foreign text. Thus, they concluded,

If readers possess the schemata assumed by the writer, they understand what is stated

and effortlessly make the inferences intended. If they do not, they distort meaning as they

attempt to accommodate even explicitly stated propositions to their own pre-existing

knowledge structures (p 60).


7/13

5

Thus, if EFL students are to understand a text that is written by a native English

speaker, they will need some knowledge of that writers culture.

Subject-specific background knowledge also affects our comprehension of a text.

Wilson and Anderson (1986) cite a study done by Chiesi, et al. (1979), in which subjects

were asked to read three-sentence descriptions of baseball situations (p 42). They found

that subjects who knew a lot about baseball were better able to learn the three-sentences

than low knowledge subjects. Further, they were able to elaborate appropriately on the

incomplete descriptions. As Wilson and Anderson write, The investigators concluded

that when someone already has considerable knowledge of a particular domain, the

acquisition of new information is facilitated, because it is mapped onto the existing

knowledge structure (p 42).

Thus, we can conclude from this section that if EFL students are to be able to

understand a text, they must have some knowledge of the rhetorical structure, they must

have some familiarity with the cultural knowledge in the text and they must have some

familiarity with the subject of the text.

Top-down vs. Bottom-up

At this point it is necessary to distinguish between bottom-up and top-down

processing. As Carrell (1988a) writes, a bottom up view of reading sees reading as

decoding letters into words and words into sentences, and through this process the reader

obtains the meaning of the text. A top down view suggests that the readers background

knowledge is stimulated by the visual cues from the text, and thus, the reader, as

Goodman (1975) writes, ... leaps toward the meaning (p 15)

Schema theory tends to vary significantly as to how much decoding, or bottom up

processing, is involved. I have identified to versions of schema theory, one presented by

Goodman, and the other by Carrell (1988b).

Goodman (1973), cited in Carrell (1988a), suggests,


8/13

6

The reader need not (and indeed the efficient reader does not) use all of the textual cues.

The better the reader is able to make correct predictions, the less confirming via the text

is necessary (p 2).

This hypothesis, according to Nicholson (1993), has been translated into the

whole-language approach, which encourages readers to guess from context. In New

Zealand, for the past 25 years, this approach has been used to teach reading to native

speakers. However, as Nicholson writes,

The fact that one in four six year olds have to receive help after a year in school is a cause

for concern. So perhaps the whole-language approach should be re-evaluated. (p 119)

Grabe (1988) suggests that top-down models, such as the Goodman model, donot account for poor readers who guess extensively (p 59). He quotes van Dijk and

Kintsch (1983),

It has been found over and over again that the best discriminator between good and poor

readers is performance on simple letter and word identification tasks. What is really

wrong with poor readers is that they recognize isolated words too slowly, and compensate

for their lack in decoding skills with context dependent guessing or hypothesis testing. (p

60)

Eskey (1988) writes,

The [top-down] model is an accurate model of the skillful, fluent reader, for whom

perception and decoding have become automatic, but for the less proficient developing

reader -- like most second language readers -- this model does not provide a true picture

of the problems such readers must surmount (p 93)

Thus, the Goodman model, has many weaknesses and many critics. Bottom-up

strategies are de-emphasized and top-down strategies are over emphasized.

However Carrells (1988b) view of schema theory suggests a more equal balance

between top-down and bottom-up processing. Citing Rumelhart (1980) she writes,

Schema-theory research has shown that the most efficient processing of text is

interactive -- a combination of top-down and bottom-up processing modes (p 101).


9/13

7

This view of schema theory resembles the interactive approach described by

Eskey (1988). It is this view of schema theory that is probably the most accurate, that

reading involves a constant interaction between bottom-up and top-down skills. As Eskey

writes,

Unlike the top-down model, this so-called interactive model does not presuppose the

primacy of top-down processing skills -- the gradual replacing of painful word-by-word

decoding with educated guessing based on minimal visual cues -- but rather posits a

constant interaction between bottom-up and top-down processing in reading, each source

of information contributing to the comprehensive reconstruction of the meaning of the

text. In this view, good readers are both good decoders and good interpreters of text (p

94).

This interactive view of schema theory has no weaknesses that I know of. It

explains much of the research that suggests that good readers use both top-down and

bottom-up skills.

Explaining reading difficulties

Carrell (1988b) argues that text processing should be bi-directional, using both

top-down and bottom-up strategies. However, ESL readers tend to be text-bound, overly

reliant on bottom-up strategies. She suggests five causes of this breakdown (p 103-110).

1. Schema availability : EFL students over rely on the text because they do not have

the appropriate schemata. They lack the subject specific knowledge or the cultural

knowledge necessary to comprehend the text.


10/13

8

2. Schema activation : EFL students must not only have the relevant schemata, they

must also activate it. Thus, if students do not recognize the clues within the text

they will be unable to activate an appropriate schemata.

3. Skill deficiencies : If readers do not possess the necessary language ability, they

will not be able to comprehend the text. Carrell suggest that effortful decoders,

reading a text that is above their level, may seek to avoid the unpleasant

decoding task by guessing the content of the text (p 108).

4. Conceptions about reading : Students may feel that making inferences from the

text may not be an appropriate activity (p 108).

5. Cognitive style : Those who are overly text-bound may be stimulus-bound in

general (p 109).

Carrell concludes by arguing that students who lack the language skills may

require different forms of help than students who lack the appropriate schema or have

misconceptions about reading (p 111). Thus, in the following section we will look at

some of the implications schema theory has for classroom practice.

Implications for the EFL classroom

The implications that schema theory holds for the classroom largely depends on

which view of schema theory you adopt. The narrow version of schema theory would

suggest that schemata, or background knowledge structures, need to be developed so that

the readers will become better predictors of the content of the text. The wider version of

schema theory, that reading is an interactive process, would suggest that both bottom-up

skills and top-down skills need to be acquired.

To activate the appropriate schemata Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) suggest doing

a pre-reading task. We want to avoid having students read the material cold (p 87).


11/13

9

Pre-reading tasks will help students predict the content of the text and it will also

familiarize them with some of the vocabulary that they are likely to encounter.

Steffensen and Joag-Dev (1979) suggest that reading literature is a good way to

learn about a culture, and build up cultural content knowledge that can be applied to any

text after it is learned (p 50). However, they also suggest that literature may not be

enough, and that certain aspects of the culture may have to be taught (p 53).

Carrell and Eisterhold (1983), citing Krashen (1981), suggest that narrow reading,

reading about one topic for an extended period, can help students build up their content

knowledge. All too often in the EFL classroom students read several short texts on

several different topics, and thus, do not have the chance to build up their content

knowledge on a topic (p 86).

The above suggestions of classroom practice are supported by schema theory and

are not very controversial. However, a further recommendation of schema theory,

especially from Goodmans model, is that readers guess at the meanings of the words

they dont know. This suggestion has received much debate in the research literature. The

debate is not about whether guessing the meaning of vocabulary should be done, butrather the degree to which it should be done.

For EFL learners, the number of unfamiliar vocabulary items in a text is certainly

much greater than for a native speaker. Hosenfeld, in a case study of ninth grade readers,

encouraged one of her subjects, a beginner student of Spanish, to guess the words that he

did not know. However, there were so many words that he did not know, it is unlikely

that he would have come up with an appropriate guess without help. In the plaza

something , something , cafes, restaurants and other something (p 240). From this

information it would be very difficult to guess what words fit the blanks.

Further, Haynes (1983) suggests that guessing often leads the EFL reader astray.

One of the implications of her study is that readers need to know when to use a

dictionary.


12/13

10

As she writes, Students need instruction in the art of double-checking a guess with the

context: if the context clashes with the word analysis interpretation, then further checking

with a native speaker or a dictionary would be advisable (p 56). This recommendation

certainly runs counter to the whole-language method proposed by Goodman, but Haynes

suggestion is supported by her research finding that roughly 50% of the advance EFL

subjects guessed wrongly when trying to interpret a text that required the reader to make

inferences (p 53).

Thus, it appears that while EFL students need to develop their background

knowledge, they also need to develop their vocabulary. Further, guessing at meaning

might not always be a good strategy for EFL learners.

Conclusion

The two versions of schema theory that I have identified agree that background

knowledge is important in the comprehension of text. Where they differ is in how much

emphasis they place on bottom up skills. Goodman (1975) suggests that readers sample

from the text, taking the bare minimum of visual cues and use their background

knowledge to predict the content of the text. Carrell (1988b) suggests an interaction between bottom-up and top-down skills and it is with her that I agree.

EFL students need background knowledge to understand the text, but they also

need vocabulary and word recognition skills. If EFL learners are discouraged from using

dictionaries, or asking someone the meaning of vocabulary, they will leap toward the

meaning (p 15), as Goodman suggests. However, as Haynes found, sometimes when

EFL learners leap, they leap in the wrong direction.


13/13

11

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. and P. Pearson, 1984. A schema-theoretic view of basic processes inreading comprehension, in P. Carrell, J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds.), 1988.Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge UniversityPress: Cambridge.

Carrell, P. 1988a. Introduction: Interactive approaches to second language reading , in P.Carrell, J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds.), 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Carrell, P. 1988b. Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESLreading, in P. Carrell, J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds.), 1988. InteractiveApproaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge.

Carrell, P. and J. Eisterhold, 1983. Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy, in P.Carrell, J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds.), 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Eskey, D. 1988. Holding the bottom: an interactive approach to the language problemsof second language readers, in P. Carrell, J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds.), 1988.Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge UniversityPress: Cambridge.

Goodman, K. 1975. The reading process, in P. Carrell, J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds.),1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. CambridgeUniversity Press: Cambridge.

Grabe, W. 1988. Reassessing the term interactive, in P. Carrell, J. Devine and D.Eskey (eds.), 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading.Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Haynes, M. 1983. Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading, (Coursehandout: Publisher and source unknown).

Hosenfeld, C. (???). Case studies of ninth grade readers. (Course handout: Publisher and source unknown).

Nicholson, T. 1993. Reading without context, in G. Thompson, W. Tunmer and T. Nicholson (eds.). 1993. Reading Acquisition Processes. Mulitlingual Matters:Clevedon.

Scollon, R. and S. Scollon, 1995. Intercultural Communication. Blackwell: Oxford.

Steffensen, M. and C. Joag-Dev, (1979). Cultural knowledge and reading . (Coursehandout: Publisher and source unknown).

Wilson, P. and R. Anderson, 1986. What they dont know will hurt them: The role of prior knowledge in comprehension, in J. Orasanu (ed.), 1986. ReadingComprehension: From Research. (Course handout: publisher unknown)

Article.2.Peterson

Documents

Transcript of Article.2.Peterson