-
HelpingESLStudentsBecomeBetterReaders:Schem
aTheoryApplicat
ionsandLimitations
Nigel Stott
nrstott@
(Fukuoka, Japan)
Schema theory describes the process by
which readers bine their own
background
knowledge
with
the
information
in
a
text
to
prehend
that
text.
All readers carry
different schemata (background information) and
these
are also often culture-specific.
This is an important concept in ESL
teaching, and prereading tasks are
often designed to build or activate
the
learner’s
schemata.
This
p
aper
summarises
some
of
the
research
into
schema
theory
and
its
applications
to
ESL
reading.
The
author
also
highlights some of the limitations of
the use of the schema-theoretic
approach
and
points
out
the
importance
both
of
developing
the
learner’s
vocabulary and of
encouraging extensive reading. Introduction
Schema theory is based on the belief
that “every act of prehension
involves
one’s knowledge of the world as well” (Anderson et
al. in
Carrell
and
Eisterhold
1983:73).
Thus,
readers
develop
a
coherent
interpretation
of
text
through
the
interactive
process
of
“bining
textual information
with the information a reader brings to a text”
(Widdowson
in
Grabe
1988:56).
Readers’
mental
stores
are
termed
‘schemata’
(after
Bartlett
in
Cook
1997:86)
and
are
div
ided
(following
Carrell 1983a)
into two main types: ‘content schemata’
(background
knowledge
of
the
world)
and
‘formal
schemata’
(background
knowledge
of
rhetorical structure).
Theories on the contribution of schemata to the
reading process are discussed in the
next section.
Schema-theoretic
research
highlights
reader
problems
related
to
absent
or
alternate
(often
culture-specific)
schemata,
as
well
as
non-activation of schemata, and even
overuse of background knowledge.
Carrell,
Devine
and
Eskey
(1988:4)
claim
that
schema
theory
has
provided
numerous
benefits
to
ESL
teaching
and,
indeed,
most
current
ESL
textbooks
attempt
schema
activation
through
prereading
activities.
However,
there
may be limits to
the effectiveness
of such
activities and there
may
even
have been some over-emphasis of
the schema perspective and neglect of
other areas (see Eskey 1988:93;
McCarthy 1991:168). Consideration is
given
in
the
latter
part
of
the
paper
to
the
limitations
of
schema-theoretic
applications
and
to
the
importance
o
f
‘extensive
reading’. Schemata and the Reading
Process
In the process of
reading, “prehension of a message entails drawing
information from both the message and
the internal schemata until sets
are
reconciled
as
a
single
schema
or
message”
(Anderson
et
al.
in
Hudson
1982:187). It is also
claimed that “the first part of a text activates
a schema... which is either confirmed
or disconfirmed by what follows”
(Wallace 1992:33) but the process
begins much earlier than this: “The
environment sets up powerful
expectations: we are already prepared for
certain
genres
but
not
for
others
before
we
open
a
newspaper,
a
scholarly
journal
or
the
box
containing
some
machine
we
have
just
bought.”
(Swales
1990:88)
The reading process, therefore,
involves identification of genre,
formal structure and topic, all of
which activate schemata and allow
readers
to
prehend
the
text
(Swales
1990:89).
In
this,
it
is
assumed
that
readers not only possess all the
relevant schemata, but also that these
schemata actually are activated. Where
this is not the case, then some
disruption of prehension may occur. In
fact, it is likely that “there
will
never
be
a
total
coincidence
of
schemas
between
writer
and
reader”
(Wallace 1992:82) such that coherence
is the property of
individual
readers. The
following section describes some of these
differences in
interpretation. Schemata
and Differences in Comprehension
Differences
between
writer
intention
and
reader
prehension
is
most
obvious
where
readers
have
had
different
life
experiences
to
the
writer’s
‘model reader’. Readers sometimes also
feel that they prehend a text,
but
have
a
different
interpretation
to
the
author
(see
Hudson
1982:187).
Humour
is
particularly
vulnerable
to
misinterpretation
as
was
discovered
when a text entitled ‘It’s a mugger’s
game in Manhattan’ (Greenall
and
Swan
1986:197-8)
was
given
to
advanced
L2
readers
(Japanese).
Although
the text appeared
humorous to the native-speaker teacher, it was
found
“scary” and “shocking” by the
Japanese students.
As Carrell and
Eiste
rhold (1983:80) point out, “one of
the most
obvious reasons why a
particular content schema may fail to exist for a
reader is that the schema is culturally
specific and is not part of a
particular
reader’s
cultural
background.”
It
is
thought
that
readers’
cultures
can
affect
everything
from
the
way
readers
view
reading
itself,
the
content
and
formal
schemata
they
hold,
right
down
to
their
understanding
of
individual
concepts.
Some
key
concepts
may
be
absent
in
the schemata of some non-
native readers (such a
s ‘lottery’ in
Carrell
and
Eisterhold
1983:87)
or
they
may
carry
alternate
interpretations.
The
concept of ‘full moon’,
for instance, in Europe is linked to schemata
that include horror stories and
madness, whereas in Japan it activates
schemata for beauty and moon-viewing
parties (for ordinary people not
werewolves!).
Some
alternates
may
be
attitudinal:
‘gun’
activates
both
shared
schemata
on
the
nature
of
guns
and
culturally
distinct
attitudinal
attachments to
those schemata (Wallace 1992:35-6).
For
l
earners
reading
at
the
limits
of
their
linguistic
abilities,
“if
the topic... is outside
of their experience or base of knowledge, they
are
adrift
on
an
unknown
sea”
(Aebersold
and
Field
1997:41).
When
faced
with
such unfamiliar topics, some students may
overpensate for absent
schemata by
reading in a slow, text-bound manner; other
students may
overpensate
by
wild
guessing
(Carrell
1988a:101).
Both
strategies
inevitably result in prehension
difficulties. Research by Johnson (in
Carrell
and
Eisterhold
1983:80)
suggested
that
a
text
on
a
familiar
topic
is
better recalled than a similar text on an
unfamiliar topic. Swales
(1990:87)
believes
that
this
and
other
research
“supports
the
mon
sense
expectancies that when content and form
are familiar the texts will be
relatively accessible.”
Some
of
the
applications
of
schema
theory
to
the
teaching
of
reading
are summarised next.
Applications of Schema Theory to ESL Reading
As
described
in
the
previous
section,
“some
students’
apparent
reading
problems
may
be
pr
oblems
of
insufficient
background
knowledge”
(Carrell
1988b:245).
Where
this
is
thought
to
be
topic-
related,
it
has
been
suggested
that
‘narrow
reading’
within
the
student’s
area
of
knowledge
or
interest
may
improve
the
situation
(see
Carrell
and
Eisterhold
1983:86).
Similarly, where schema deficiencies
are culture-specific, it could be
useful to provide local texts or texts
which are developed from the
readers’
own experiences
(:85).
On
the
other
hand,
Carrell
and
Eisterhold
(1983:89)
also
suggest
that
“every
culture
-specific
interference
problem
dealt
with
in
the
classroom
presents
an
opportunity
to
build
new
culture-specific
schemata
that
will
be
available
to
the
EFL/ESL
student
outside
the
classroom.”
Thus,
rather
than attempting to
neutralise texts, it would seem more suitable to
prepare
students
by
“helping
them
build
background
knowledge
on
the
topic
prior to reading,
through appropriate prereading
acti
vities”
(Carrell
1988b:245).
Carrell (1988b:245) lists numerous ways
in which relevant schemata
may
be
constructed,including
lectures,
visual
aids,
demonstrations,
real-life
experiences,
discussion,
role-play,
text
previewing,
introduction
and
discussion
of
key
vocabulary,
and
key-word/key-concept
association activities. Examples of
such contextualisation include,
for
example,
showing
pictures
of
a
city
before
asking
the
students
to
read
a text about that city, or playing a
video clip from a film adaptation
of
the
novel
the
class
is
about
to
study.
Although
helpful,
these
prereading
activities
are
probably
not
sufficient
alone
and
teachers
will
need to supply additional information.
Reading
problems
are
not
just
caused
by
schema
deficiencies,
and
the
“relevant
schemata must be activated” (Carrell 1988a:105).
In other
words, readers may e to a text
with prior knowledge but their schemata
are not necessarily activated while
reading so “prereading activities
must
acplish both goals: building new background
knowledge as well as
activating
existing
background
knowledge”
(Carrell
1988b:248).
Particularly
useful
and
popular
here
are
questioning
and
‘brainstorming’,
where
learners
generate
information
on
the
topic
based