Article.6.Tim

7/28/2019 Article.6.Tim

1/24

Tim Dalby 5

Schema Theory: Getting into the Minds

of your Learners

Tim Dalby

Jeonju University

Abstract

Trying to define schema is like trying to catch a wisp of smoke.It defies iron-cast definition, yet remains central to the process of reading.This short paper attempts to trace the origins of schema theory from

its earliest beginnings, through the dark days of behaviorism to anenlightened view of reading as an interactive process. In addition, I

will exemplify the major elements of schema theory and show howthey have been put into practical use for the benefit of second languagelearners in terms of useful pre- while- and post-reading activities.

Keywords: Schema theory, Reading, Course books, Extensive reading.I . An Old Idea?

Schema theory is a not new idea, having origins with Plato and

the Greek philosophy of ideal types. Kant named and developed the

concept which was later taken up by Bartlett in his 1932 study to

observe the effect of culture on the recall of text. Unfortunately at

this time, behaviourism was in its ascendancy and schema theory took

a back seat for over forty years (Ajideh, 2003, p. 3). As the influence

of behaviourism waned, various researchers began to look at reading

as an interactive process which led to an examination of the role of

individual background knowledge on the readers comprehension ofa text. Swales defines background knowledge as made up of our assimi-

lated direct experiences of life and its manifold activities, and our assimi-


2/24

6 Schema Theory: Getting into the Minds of your Learners

lated verbal experiences and encounters (1990, p. 83).Aspects of this background knowledge have been variously described

as scripts (Abelson 1976, cited in Brown & Yule, 1983 p. 241), frames

(Minsky 1975, cited in Yule, 1983, p. 238), scenarios (Sanford & Garrod

1981, cited in Yule, 1983, p. 245) or simply as background knowledge

(Grabe & Stoller, 2002, p. 27), each having a slightly different focus,

function or purpose. For this discussion, I will use the term schema

to encompass all others. Any definition is unlikely to capture the full

extent and implication of schema theory. Instead, we must rely onexemplification, judgement and experience to help us understand how

what we know interacts with what is written to create what is

understood.When describing types of schemata, Carrell & Eisterhold build upon

previous arguments to differentiate formal schemata from content sche-

mata (1983, p. 560). The former cover linguistic elements such as

language, vocabulary and genre, the latter deal with knowledge of a

subject, culture and the world. In the next section, these two aspects

will be discussed in terms of their strengths and weaknesses by examining

selected research studies and other evidence currently available. Then,

I will attempt to highlight and provide examples of the contribution

schema theory has made to the practice of teaching reading in a foreign

language.

II. Components of Schema Theory

2.1 Content Schemata

When describing the concept of a content schema, Alderson further

distinguishes between three components: subject knowledge; knowledge

of the world; and cultural knowledge (2000, p. 43-46). It is to these

three aspects that I now turn.2.2 Subject Knowledge

Schema theory suggests that we will comprehend a text better if

we have prior knowledge of the subject being discussed. This is exempli-


3/24

Tim Dalby 7

fied by using highly technical texts such as the one below (Zurfluhet al., 2008):

Phenylketonuria (PKU) is an autosomal recessive inborn error of metabo-

lism resulting from a deficiency of phenylalanine hydroxylase (PAH;

612349), an enzyme that catalyzes the hydroxylation of phenylalanine

to tyrosine, the rate-limiting step in phenylalanine catabolism. If un-

diagnosed and untreated, phenylketonuria can result in impaired postnatal

cognitive development resulting from a neurotoxic effect of

hyperphenylalaninemia.

Someone with no knowledge of phenylketonuria would be unlikely

to have pragmatic competence of the passage and would have difficulty

pronouncing some of the more technical terms correctly.

Aside from subject knowledge, studies by Rumelhart & Bransford

have shown that when titles or other cues are removed from a text,

it becomes difficult to comprehend (Alderson, 2000, p. 43). An example

from R.C. Anderson et al. (1977, cited in Yule, 1996:148) is reproducedbelow:

Rocky slowly got up from the mat, planning his escape. He hesitated

a moment and thought. Things were not going well. What bothered

him most was being held, especially since the charge against him had

been weak. He considered his present situation. The lock that held

him was strong, but he thought he could break it.

When shown to a group of English teachers in Korea, this passagewas interpreted to be about either wrestling or being held in a police

cell, but neither explanation was completely satisfactory to the teachers.

Although horoscopes are a notable example of ambiguously written

texts, as Sadoski et al. point out, rarely is a real text this ambiguous

(1991:470).

According to schema theory, when faced with a text, we activate

the appropriate schema and then add information to it (Carrell &

Eisterhold, 1983, p. 557). However, as Alderson suggests, schema theorydoes not adequately explain how new information is acquired when

no schema already exists (2000, p. 44).


4/24


Studies which support the idea of a subject schemas importanceto reading include that of Alderson & Urquhart who reported in 1985

that students with specialist subject knowledge achieved higher scores

in reading tests than students without specialist knowledge. They also

found that higher linguistic proficiency could, to a point, make up

for a lack of subject knowledge and vice versa (Alderson, 2000, p.

44). Subject knowledge is also transferrable from L1 to L2 reading

(Hayashi, 1999, p. 122).

However, a text needs to be sufficiently specialised as shownin a study which suggests caution for the predictive power of subject

knowledge (Pateraki, 1997). Of course, where the line exists between

sufficiently and insufficiently specialised requires more study. Carver

points out that the weakness of schema theory is that it is only relevant

for specialised texts which require specialised study - not texts used

in normal, everyday reading (1992, p. 173).2.3 Knowledge of the World

Hoey describes schema as a way of organising knowledge and experi-

ence in the brain. He suggests that when one aspect of a schema is

activated, the whole schema becomes available to the reader and, in

turn, affects the interpretation of the text (Hoey, 2001, p. 121). Alderson

(2000, p. 45) cites this example from Rumelhart, (1985, p. 267): The

policeman held up his hand and the car stopped.

Using our traffic officer schema, we usually dont attribute any

superhuman powers to this policeman. Similarly, the sentence, I wentto the restaurant last night. as exemplified by Cook (1997, p. 86)

would usually be unremarkable as we would understand that a person

went to a restaurant, sat down, ordered food, ate, paid and then left.

Of course, what we imagine happened and what actually happened

may be entirely different. One representation of the restaurant might

be a cozy, family-run Italian, another might be a fast-food chain.

Psychologists call this phenomenon filling in perception and it has

to do with the way our brains store experiences - not as a whole but

instead as main ideas which can later be reweaved, rather than recalled

(Gilbert, 2006, p. 79).


5/24

Tim Dalby 9

However, a schema remains active until textual or linguistic cuesshow that the schema needs to be changed. In taking an illustrative

example by Sanford & Garrod (1981) cited in Yule (1996, p. 146-7)

and reproduced below, we can see the processes that go on as we

fill in the gaps of the text and interact with it. As you read each sentence,

try to imagine the situation and then see how it changes as you read

each subsequent sentence.

John was on his way to school last Friday.He was really worried about the math lesson.

Last week he had been unable to control the class.

It was unfair of the math teacher to leave him in charge.

After all, it is not a normal part of a janitors duties.

This is an artificial construction of reading, but does provide an

insight into how we build information into a sentence based on our

expectations of what normal is (1996, p. 147).

However, Ghadessy suggests that vocabulary knowledge is the im-

portant factor in understanding texts such as these and that schema

theory is nothing more than a theory of text redundancy (1983, p.

377). Indeed, as we read through the story of John, the introduction

of certain words changes our mental image. The role of vocabulary

is explored in more detail below.2.4 Cultural Knowledge

Schema theory holds strongest in the area of background cultural

knowledge. Bartlett was one of the first to write about the effect of

cultural norms on the recall of information. In his 1932 study, British

subjects were asked to recall details of The War of the Ghosts, a

North American Indian folktale, up to a year after first reading. In

each instance, the recall added or omitted information so that the story

conformed to the tellers cultural norms (Alderson, 2000, p. 45). Similarly,

Steffenson & Joag-Devs 1984 study identified the effects of cultural

schema. They used an American and Indian wedding text to be readby a group of Americans and a group of Indians. As expected, the


6/24


Indian group recalled more ideas from the Indian text than the Americanreaders and vice versa. Also, as in Bartletts study, each group added

to or modified the foreign culture text so that it conformed more

closely to their own notions of a wedding. Additionally each group

added new details to their own culturally-familiar texts (Steffenson

& Joag-Dev, 1984).

The implication here for teaching is to ensure that cultural context

is provided to help students overcome problems of comprehension.

Even a small amount of cultural instruction can help (Gatbonton &Tucker, 1971, cited in Steffenson & Joag-Dev, 1984, p. 52) One interesting

study in Turkey created a nativized version of a typical American story

The Girls in their Summer Dresses by replacing character names with

Turkish names, New York with Canakkale, and by converting conceptual

cues, so that eating steak was replaced with eating fish (Razi, 2004,

p. 285). The study reported a significant increase in comprehension

due to increased familiarity with the culture (Razi, 2004, p. 287).

However, a similar study by Alptekin suggests that while a nativized

text increased students ability to make inferences, it did not make

up for their lack of linguistic skill (2006, p. 502). Indeed, even Bartletts

original findings have been questioned as the type of recall changes

depending on the design of the task (Alba & Hasher, 1983, p. 214).2.5 Formal Schemata

When describing the concept of a formal schema, Alderson dis-

tinguishes between language knowledge, genre knowledge and meta-linguistic knowledge (2000, p. 34-43). These three aspects will be dis-

cussed below.

Language knowledge

Aebersold & Field describe a linguistic schema as one which involves

bottom-up processing skills such as decoding words and organising

grammatical structure (1997, p. 17). Linguistic ability will depend on

a persons age, experience, vocabulary size and knowledge of textualconventions: the more linguistic knowledge a person has, the quicker


7/24

Tim Dalby 11

they are able to process a given text (Alderson, 2000, p. 34). In supportof schema theory, Cooper distinguished between practised and un-

practised readers and found that students who had better knowledge

of vocabulary and the syntactic relationships between words were better

able to comprehend a text. He also showed that practised readers could

make better use of linking words and linguistic cues in texts (1984,

p. 133).

Having an adequate vocabulary for reading is essential. For second

language learners, reading an unsimplified, academic text requires aminimum vocabulary of around 3000 headwords as well as effective

strategies for dealing with unknown words (Nation, 1990, p. 116).

Hazenberg & Hulstijn (1996, p. 145) found that students wishing to

study at a Dutch university required a vocabulary of around 10,000

words, much higher than previously thought. According to Nation (2001),

learners need to know around 98% of a text to be able to understand

it, which seems to be the agreed level for effective comprehension

(Read, 2000, p. 83).

Vocabulary size isnt everything though. There are several elements

that are necessary to adequately know a word (Nation, 1990, p. 31)

and this becomes very apparent when dealing with polysemes and

homonyms. As Cook (1997, p. 86) points out:

Schema theory can...explain how we choose unconsciously between

homonyms. We are unlikely to assume the sentence The King put

his seal on the letter. to be about an aquatic mammal, because that

is not the kind of seal in most king schemas.

However, whether this is schema theory in action or merely a result

of good vocabulary teaching is questionable. A 1998 study by Leffa

suggests that collocation knowledge is more effective than schema activa-

tion 94% of the time.

As previously mentioned, knowledge of syntactic structures can help

to overcome a lack of subject knowledge. Berman, in a study with

Hebrew-speaking English learners, showed that her students had diffi-

culties in English when the structure of a sentence differed from that

encountered in Hebrew (1984, p. 148). Particular difficulties occurred


8/24


when substantial information occurs before the main verb and whenadverbial phrases are placed before the main clause (Berman, 1984,

p. 151). Shiotsu & Weir even suggest that knowledge of syntax, rather

than vocabulary, may be more predictive of reading proficiency than

previously thought (2007, p. 123).

However, knowledge of some syntactic structures is not enough.

For example, knowledge of the passive construction alone is not a

good indicator of performance when reading a passive-voice-laden scien-

tific text (Alderson, 2000, p. 37).A final element of a linguistic schema is the ability one brings

from reading in a first language to reading in a second. It had been

assumed that readers needed to be able to read well in their first language

in order to read well in a second language (Alderson, 2000, p. 38).

Instead, several studies have shown that second language knowledge,

rather than first language reading skill, is a far better predictor of second

language reading skill. Additionally, there exists a linguistic threshold

beyond which a student must pass before first language reading skills

start to make an impact on second language reading. The threshold

is not a fixed line, but instead varies depending on how demanding

the task of reading is (Alderson, 2000, p. 39).Genre knowledge

Carrell suggests that a formal schema exists to identify and recognise

textual organisation and rhetorical structures (1984, p. 341). Alderson

refers to the same idea as knowledge of genre (2000, p. 39) andTribble provides the example that we can recognise a letter of rejection

within the first couple of lines of text (1997, p. 35). Our knowledge

of genre helps us better predict what we are going to read about, how

it will be organised and even the kind of vocabulary and syntactic

structures we are likely to encounter (Harmer, 2001, p. 200).

Alderson, however, is more cautious and points out that there has

been very little research into this specific area. What has been researched,

by Mandler (1978) and Carrell (1981), has tended to confuse text with

schemata (cited in Alderson, 2000, p. 40). In these studies respectively,

first and second language students comprehension of a text was affected


9/24

Tim Dalby 13

when stories were presented that did not conform to the normal storyschema.Metalinguistic knowledge and metacognition

Knowledge of how a language is structured is unlikely to lead to

an improvement in reading comprehension. A study by Alderson et

al. found that linguistic knowledge and metalinguistic knowledge are

separate abilities, implying that comprehension is possible without meta-

linguistic knowledge. (1997, cited in Alderson, 2000, p. 42).

Casanave argues that strategy schemata are as important as content

and formal schemata (cited in Auerbach & Paxton, 1997, p. 241). Studies

have supported this and shown that knowledge of reading strategies

and the ability to control them (turning them into skills, using Grabe

& Stollers definition (2002, p. 15)) have a marked effect on compre-

hension (Auerbach & Paxton, 1997). Alderson agrees suggesting that

poor readers have no knowledge of strategy use (2000, p. 41).

I I I. Why is Schema Theory Useful?

Increased understanding

It could be argued that schema theory has contributed to the under-

standing of second language reading through the vast amount of research

it has generated, either to support or discredit it (Alba & Hasher, 1983,

p. 224). This research has led to an increased knowledge about theprocesses involved in reading. Before schema theorys resurgence, read-

ing was either a top-down or bottom-up process. Top-down processes

stem from Goodmans psycholinguistic guessing game model, and

focus on skills such as inference and prediction (Eskey, 1988, p. 93).

Bottom-up models see reading as a decoding exercise in which words

and syntax are processed to create a mental image of the message

of the text (Grabe & Stoller, 2002, p. 32). Instead, it is now generally

agreed that reading is interactive, both in the sense of an interactionbetween the top-down and bottom-up processes of reading (Grabe, 1991,

p. 383) and in the sense that meaning is constructed through a readers


10/24


interaction with the text. In earlier years reading a text was seen aslike opening a box: all the reader had to do was extract the meaning

from the text (Wallace, 2001, p. 22).

The movements of narrow and extensive reading trace their roots

to schema theory. Carrell (1984, p. 339) argues that narrow reading

can help to build up content knowledge by reading in specific subjects.

Extensive reading works on the same idea, but instead encourages readers

to become more familiar with linguistic conventions, vocabulary and

intertextuality. (Stott, 2001, [online]).Schema theory has also contributed to test design. The implication

that subject knowledge may predict reading success is something that

test designers need to consider when choosing passages for high stakes

tests such as IELTS. Wallace argued strongly that removing the read-

ing-writing link would disadvantage some students from certain cultures

unfamiliar with particular writing topics (1997, p. 371). Content knowl-

edge of a test can be internal, or already held by the candidate, or

external, that is provided by the test. A test designer can only make

reasonable assumptions about what a candidate is likely to know before

taking a test (OSullivan, 2005, p. 14) and the choice of current and

popular topics such as the environment seems to make sense in terms

of fairness and of avoiding content bias.

In the classroom, schema theory has influenced the way a typical

reading lesson is approached, giving increased emphasis to the building

of interest and accessing previous knowledge (Sheridan, 1978, p. 12).

Instead of simply open your books to page 35 and read, teachers

need to be more aware of their students interests when selecting readingmaterials (Pearson-Casanave, 1984, p. 335). As discussed in above,

if there is a large gap between a readers existing schema and knowledge

required to read, then effective reading cannot take place as in figure

1, below.

FIGURE 1

Too much distance between what a reader knows and what a reader

needs to know


11/24

Tim Dalby 15

Ideally, a teacher will choose materials where there is some overlap

between a readers schema and the knowledge required to comprehend

the text as in figure 2, below.

FIGURE 2

Just right: a teacher can build on what a reader already knows and

so make reading interesting.

Al-Issa provides a useful list of questions that teachers should ask

when selecting texts, which is reproduced below (2006, p. 45):

1. Will my students be interested in reading such materials?

2. Will these materials be relevant to my students English proficiency

levels?3. What content knowledge is to be extracted from these materials?

4. Will these materials cause cultural conflicts in the classroom?


12/24


5. How can I motivate my students and involve them in reading suchmaterials?

6. What kinds of pre-reading, reading, and post-reading activities and

materials can be designed to increase my students understanding

of these materials?

7. Do the reading materials provide students with sufficient background

information about the content of the text?

8. How much time and freedom am I giving my students to exercise

their understandings of the materials?

9. Am I being sensitive to my students hidden comprehension prob-

lems?

10. Am I helping my students become more aware of the fact that

reading is a highly interactive process?

11. Are my students changing their attitudes about reading?

12. Am I allowing my students to become independent, self-directed

readers?

It is now more typical for teachers to engage their students in sche-

ma-activating activities before, during and after the reading process

in order to build a framework for reading. In the following sections,

I will describe some of the activities that fall into these three areas,

though it is by no means an exhaustive review.

Pre-reading activities

Murtagh argues that inducing appropriate schemata through suitable

pre-reading activities is likely to be extremely beneficial (1989, p.

102, cited in N. Anderson, 1999, p. 12). Evidence to support this viewwas collected by Ajideh and shows how students were able to move

from text-bound interpretations to more holistic views of any given

reading material (2003, p. 11-12). This stage is important as it helps

students focus on the task at hand, encourages predictions to be made

and tested, and provides for gaps in background knowledge to be identified

and filled in. Thus the idea of pre-teaching vocabulary now extends

to pre-teaching subject details, cultural aspects of a text, and providing

context as part of the framework of reading (Ajideh, 2003, p. 6). All

this provides a richer experience for teacher and student alike.


13/24

Tim Dalby 17

FIGURE 3

A typical pre-reading activity (Craven, 2003, p. 36)


14/24


FIGURE 4

An example of a research activity (Haugnes, & Maher, 2004, p. 22-23)


15/24

Tim Dalby 19

Pre-reading activities can be as simple as having a discussion abouta certain topic, which Anderson suggests can help students recall knowl-

edge they did not realise they had (1999, p. 14). A typical discussion

activity can be seen below in Figure 3. Alternatively, students can

be given a writing exercise as a way to research and learn about a

topic, and become familiar with genre and vocabulary as well as with

the main ideas that may be related to a topic. An example of this

kind of exercise can be seen below in Figure 4.

Semantic mapping is another way to activate a schema. Semanticmapping is much like brainstorming (Anderson, 1999, p. 14), where

concepts and ideas about a topic are collected and organized - possibly

on the board. An example exercise is reproduced in Figure 5, below.

FIGURE 5

A semantic mapping exercise (Anderson, 1999, p. 15)

This method can help counteract the possible negative effects of

activating knowledge by challenging preconceived notions such as

stereotypes. Sometimes our knowledge of a subject stops us from ad-

equately comprehending a text. As Cook (1997, p. 86) suggests:

In unfamiliar situations, attention to detail and a willingness to aban-don and change our schemas are still the hallmarks of a flexible and

open mind.


16/24


FIGURE 6

A method for previewing (Mikulecky, 1990, p. 37)


17/24

Tim Dalby 21

FIGURE 7

Prediction and discussion based on pictures (Craven, 2003, p. 56)


18/24


It is also useful for the teacher to be provocative in asking questionsto get students thinking about and discussing the issues (N. Anderson,

1999, p. 17). Previewing (see Figure 6, below) encourages students

to predict the content of a text using visual cues such as titles, photos

and even text organisation (see Figure 7, below).

Students can also try to predict the structure of the text - and thus

build up a mental portfolio of genres used in English. Swaffar emphasises

the importance of being able to distinguish genres such as academic

essays, plays, magazine fluff and recipes as an important step on theroad towards giving learners the skills they need to recognise the grammat-

ical structures, stylistic markers and how ideas are developed in different

texts (1991, cited in Ajideh, 2003, p. 8).

While-reading activities

An appreciation of schema theory has led to a better structure for

comprehension questions. Pearson & Johnson argued that questions

should be textually explicit, textually implicit (but still on the page)or schematically implicit (cited in Sheridan, 1978, p. 14-15). As discussed

earlier, this has had an effect on high-stakes tests such as IELTS. It

is now less common to see culturally-loaded questions exemplified

in Steffenson & Joag-Devs study (1984, p. 51).

Other activities generally take the form of work requiring students

to read for different purposes. Typically, students first read for vocabulary

meaning, then again to find main ideas, or skimming, and finally again

to find details, or scanning. Grabe & Stoller cite, reading to learn,reading to integrate information and reading for general compre-

hension as additional reasons to read (2002, p. 13-15) all of which

can be practised.

Good reading teachers can also use while-reading activities to build

upon pre-reading activities so that learners check earlier predictions,

identify key vocabulary and monitor the skills and strategies they are

using while they read. Auerbach & Paxtons study (1997, p. 238) was

based on the premise that:

...readers...can become aware of their existing strategies, expand their


19/24

Tim Dalby 23

repertoire of strategies, revise their conceptions of reading, and gaincontrol of strategy choices, enhancing comprehension and recall.

As fluent reading concerns a combination of many different processing

resources, it is important to work on them both individually and as

processes that require careful cooperation (Grabe & Stoller, 2002, p.

14).

Post-reading activitiesPost-reading activities can take place as a discussion or debate on

the text or the issues raised in it. Readers can be encouraged to describe

what they got from the text or how they interpreted it. Alternatively,

students could be asked to write comprehension questions for other

students. This helps develop comprehension skills as well as encouraging

a readers ownership of the text (Carrell, 1984, p. 337). Writing activities,

such as producing a summary are also common and seek to encourage

a deeper processing of the text and its various features (Grabe, 1991,p. 394).

IV. When is a Theory not a Theory?

Schema is a nebulous term (Alba & Hasher, 1983, p. 225) that

defies rigorous definition much like the term culture. Much of the

criticism of schema theory is levelled in this way. If it cannot be defined,

then it cannot be tested and so conclusions cannot be drawn from

it (Sadoski et al., 1991, p. 468). Maybe because of this lack of rigor,

a vast amount of research has been undertaken to either prove or disprove

schema theory. This research has led to interesting developments in

reading research as well as propagating new theories that deal with

more precisely-defined processes, such as Sadoskis dual coding theory

(1991). In fact it seems that many of the components of schema theory

can be explained in other terms or by other processes (Alba & Hasher,

1983, p. 225). Additional arguments can be levelled at the nature ofthe bizarre texts used to support schema theory, the method of study


20/24


(Sadoski et al., 1991, p. 469-470) and the reliance on recall as thecriterion of successful reading, which is not necessarily the same as

comprehension.

However, the intuitive appeal of schema theory and its influence

on teaching practice has had a generally positive effect on reading

instruction, leading to a more learner-centred approach which focuses

on individual needs and celebrates the diversity of background

experiences. The reading classroom is no doubt a better place thanks

to the work of Plato, Kant, Bartlett and all the other researchers thathave contributed to establishing reading as an interaction between the

reader and the text, rather than viewing the reader as a mere passive

receiver of information.

References

Aebersold, J.A., & Field, M.L. (1997). From reader to reading teacher.

Issues and strategies for second language classrooms. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Ajideh, P. (2003). Schema theory-based pre-reading tasks: A neglected

essential in the ESL reading class. The Reading Matrix: An

International Online Journal [online]. Available from: http://www.

readingmatrix.com/articles/ajideh/article.pdf[accessed25/10/10].

Alba, J.W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological

Bulletin 93(2), 203-231.

Alderson, C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Al-Issa, A. (2006). Schema theory and L2 reading comprehension:

Implications for teaching. Journal of College Teaching & Learning

3(7), 41-48. [online]. Available from http://www.cluteinstitute

-onlinejournals.com/PDFs/2006100.pdf[accessed25/10/10].

Alptekin, C. (2006). Cultural familiarity in inferential and literal

comprehension in L2 reading. System, 34, 494-508.

Anderson, N. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues andstrategies. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Auerbach, E.R., & Paxton, D. (1997). Its Not the English Thing:


21/24

Tim Dalby 25

Bringing reading research into the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,31(2), 237-261.

Berman, R.A. (1984). Syntactic components of the foreign language

reading process. In J.C. Alderson, & A.H. Urquhart, (Eds.) Reading

in a Foreign Language. (pp.139-159) London: Longman.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Carrell, P. & Eisterhold, J.C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading

pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 17(4), 553-573.Carrell, P.L. (1984). Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom

implications and applications. The Modern Language Journal 68(iv),

332-343.

Carver, R.P. (1992). Effect of prediction activities, prior knowledge,

and text type upon the amount comprehended: using rauding theory

to critique schema theory research. Reading Research Quarterly

27(2), 165-174.

Cook, G. (1997). Key concepts in ELT: Schemas. ELT Journal 51(1),

86.

Cooper, M. (1984). Linguistic competence of practised and unpractised

non-native readers of English. In J.C. Alderson, & A.H. Urquhart,

(Eds.) Reading in a Foreign Language. (pp.122-138) London :

Longman.

Craven, M. (2003). Extending reading keys. Oxford: Macmillan

Publishers Ltd.

Craven, M. (2003). Introducing reading keys. Oxford: Macmillan

Publishers Ltd.Eskey, D.E. (1988). Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach

to the language problems of second language readers. In Carrell,

P.L., Devine, J. & Eskey, D.E. (Eds.) Interactive approaches to

second language reading. (pp. 93-100). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Ghadessy, M. (1985). Comments on recent articles on schema theory.

A reader reacts: Word knowledge and world knowledge. TESOL

Quarterly 19(2), 375-382.Gilbert, D. (2006). Stumbling on happiness. New York: Knopf, Random

House.


22/24


Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language readingresearch. TESOL Quarterly 25(3), 375-406.

Grabe, W. & F. Stoller (2002). Teaching and researching reading,

London: Pearson Education, Longman.

Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of english language teaching3rd Edition.

Harlow: Longman.

Haugnes, N., & Maher, B. (2004). Northstar: Reading and writing,

basic/low intermediate, second edition. White Plains, N.Y.: Pearson

Education Inc.Hayashi, K. (1999). Reading strategies and extensive reading in EFL

classes. RELC Journal 30(2), 114-132.

Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J.H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive

second-language vocabulary for non-native university students: An

empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics 17(2), 145-163.

Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction. An introduction to written discourse

analysis. London: Routledge.

Leffa, V.J. (1998). Textual constraints in L2 lexical disambiguation.

System 26, 183-194.

Mikulecky, B.S. (1990). A short course in teaching reading skills.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Nation, P. (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:


Nation, P. (1990) Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle

and Heinle.

OSullivan, B. (2005). An overview of test validity-linking the language

testing module notes to current thinking. Reading, UK: TheUniversity of Reading.

Pateraki, E.M. (1997). The Influence of background knowledge on

reading comprehension. Unpublished MA TEFL dissertation, Centre

for Applied Language Studies, Reading University.

Pearson-Casanave, C.R. (1984). Communicative pre-reading activities:

Schema theory in action. TESOL Quarterly 18(2), 334-336.

Razi, S. (2004). The effects of cultural schema and reading activities

on reading comprehension. In M. Singhal & J. Liontas (Eds.)Proceedings of the First International Online Conference on Second

and Foreign Language Teaching and Research. September 25-26,


23/24

Tim Dalby 27

2004-Beyond Borders [online] Available from: http://www. readingmatrix.com/conference/pp/proceedings/razi.pdf[accessed25/10/10].

Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E.T. (1991). A critique of schema

theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research

Quarterly 26(4), 463-484.

Sheridan, E.M. (1978). A review of research on schema theory and

its implications for reading instruction in secondary reading. [online]Available from:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED167947.pdf[accessed 25/10/2010].

Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C.J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic

knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading

comprehension test performance, Language Testing, 24(1), 99-128.

Steffenson, M.S., & Joag-Dev, C. (1984). Cultural knowledge in reading.

In Alderson, J.C. & Urquhart, A.H. (Eds.) Reading in a foreign

language. (pp. 48-61). London: Longman.

Stott, N. (2001). Helping ESL students become better readers: Schema

theory applications and limitations. The Internet TESL Journal,

VII (November) [online]. Available from: http://iteslj.org/Articles

/Stott-Schema.html[accessed25/10/2010].

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Tribble, C. (1997). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wallace, C. (1997). IELTS: Global implications of curriculum and

materials design. ELT Journal 51(4), 370-373.Wallace, C. (2001). Reading. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.) The

Cambridge guide to teaching english to speakers of other languages.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yule, G. (1996). The study of language, 2nd edition. Cambridge:


Zurfluh, M. R., Zschocke, J., Lindner, M., Feillet, F., Chery, C., Burlina,

A., Stevens, R. C., Thony, B., & Blau, N. (2008). Molecular genetics

of tetrahydrobiopterin-responsive phenylalanine hydroxylasedeficiency. Human Mutation. 29, 167-175.


24/24


Tim DalbyJeonju University

[email protected]

Received: 2010-10-26

Peer reviewed: 2010-11-24

Accepted: 2010-12-14

Article.6.Tim

Documents

Transcript of Article.6.Tim