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 Unpublished MA Assignment. University of Reading, England.

SCHEMA THEORY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EFL CLASSROOM

Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 What is schema theory? ....................................................................... 1 Background knowledge ...................................................................... 3

Top-down vs. Bottom-up ..................................................................... 5 Explaining reading difficulties ............................................................ Implications for the EFL classroom .................................................... Conclusion ........................................................................................... 7 8 10

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

SCHEMA THEORY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EFL CLASSROOM

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) b)

The car was too expensive. 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.

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) d)

The car was too expensive. He didnt have enough money 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

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

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).

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,

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, do not 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).

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.

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).

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, but rather 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.

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.

11

REFERENCES
Anderson, R. and P. Pearson, 1984. A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension, in P. Carrell, J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds.), 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge University Press: 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 ESL reading, in P. Carrell, J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds.), 1988. Interactive Approaches 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 problems of second language readers, in P. Carrell, J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds.), 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Goodman, K. 1975. The reading process, in P. Carrell, J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds.), 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge University 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, (Course handout: 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. (Course handout: 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. Reading Comprehension: From Research. (Course handout: publisher unknown)