Schema Theory

Linguists, cognitive psychologists, and psycholinguists have used
the concept of schema (plural: schemata) to understand the
interaction of key factors affecting the comprehension process.
Simply put, schema theory states that all knowledge is organized
into units. Within these units of knowledge, or schemata, is
stored information.
A schema, then, is a generalized description or a conceptual
system for understanding knowledge-how knowledge is represented
and how it is used.
According to this theory, schemata represent knowledge
about concepts: objects and the relationships they have
with other objects, situations, events, sequences of
events, actions, and sequences of actions.
A simple example is to think of your schema for dog.
Within that schema you most likely have knowledge about
dogs in general (bark, four legs, teeth, hair, tails)
and probably information about specific dogs, such as
collies (long hair, large, Lassie) or springer spaniels
(English, docked tails, liver and white or black and
white, Millie). You may also think of dogs within the
greater context of animals and other living things;
that is, dogs breathe, need food, and reproduce. Your
knowledge of dogs might also include the fact that they
are mammals and thus are warm-blooded and bear their
young as opposed to laying eggs. Depending upon your
personal experience, the knowledge of a dog as a pet
(domesticated and loyal) or as an animal to fear
(likely to bite or attack) may be a part of your
schema. And so it goes with the development of a
schema. Each new experience incorporates more
information into one's schema.
What does all this have to do with reading comprehension?
Individuals have schemata for everything. Long before
students come to school, they develop schemata (units of
knowledge) about everything they experience. Schemata
become theories about reality. These theories not only
affect the way information is interpreted, thus affecting
comprehension, but also continue to change as new
information is received.
As stated by Rumelhart (1980),
schemata can represent knowledge at all levels-from ideologies
and cultural truths to knowledge about the meaning of a
particular word, to knowledge about what patterns of excitations
are associated with what letters of the alphabet. We have
schemata to represent all levels of our experience, at all levels
of abstraction. Finally, our schemata are our knowledge. All of
our generic knowledge is embedded in schemata. (p. 41)
The importance of schema theory to reading comprehension also
lies in how the reader uses schemata. This issue has not yet
been resolved by research, although investigators agree that
some mechanism activates just those schemata most relevant to
the reader's task.
Reading Comprehension as Cognitive-Based Processing
There are several models based on cognitive processing (see
Ruddell, Ruddell, & Singer, 1994, p. 813). For example, the
LaBerge-Samuels Model of Automatic Information Processing
(Samuels, 1994) emphasizes internal aspects of attention
as crucial to comprehension.
Samuels(1994, pp. 818-819) defines three characteristics
of internal attention. The first, alertness, is the
reader's active attempt to access relevant schemata
involving letter-sound relationships, syntactic knowledge,
and word meanings. Selectivity, the second characteristic,
refers to the reader's ability to attend selectively to
only that information requiring processing.
The third characteristic, limited capacity, refers to the
fact that our human brain has a limited amount of cognitive
energy available for use in processing information. In
other words, if a reader's cognitive energy is focused on
decoding and attention cannot be directed at integrating,
relating, and combining the meanings of the words decoded,
then comprehension will suffer. "Automaticity in
information processing, then, simply means that information
is processed with little attention" (Samuels, 1994, p.
823). Comprehension difficulties occur when the reader
cannot rapidly and automatically access the concepts and
knowledge stored in the schemata.
One other example of a cognitive-based model is Rumelhart's
(1994) Interactive Model. Information from several
knowledge sources (schemata for letter-sound relationships,
word meanings, syntactic relationships, event sequences,
and so forth) are considered simultaneously. The
implication is that when information from one source, such
as word recognition, is deficient, the reader will rely on
information from another source, for example, contextual
clues or previous experience.
Stanovich (1980) terms the latter kind of processing
interactive-compensatory because the reader (any reader)
compensates for deficiencies in one or more of the
knowledge sources by using information from remaining
knowledge sources. Those sources that are more concerned
with concepts and semantic relationships are termed higherlevel
stimuli; sources dealing with the print itself, that
is phonics, sight words, and other word-attack skills, are
termed lower level stimuli.
The interactive-compensatory model implies that the reader
will rely on higher-level processes when lower-level
processes are inadequate, and vice versa. Stanovich (1980)
extensively reviews research demonstrating such
compensation in both good and poor readers.
Reading Comprehension as Sociocognitive Processing
A sociocognitive processing model takes a constructivist
view of reading comprehension; that is, the reader, the
text, the teacher, and the classroom community are all
involved in the construction of meaning. Ruddell and
Ruddell (1994, p. 813) state, "The role of the classroom's
social context and the influence of the teacher on the
reader's meaning negotiation and construction are central
to this model [developed by R. B. Ruddell and N. J. Unrau]
as it explores the notion that participants in literacy
events form and reform meanings in a hermeneutic
[interpretation] circle."
In other words, this model views comprehension as a process
that involves meaning negotiation among text, readers,
teachers, and other members of the classroom community.
Schema for text meanings, academic tasks, sources of
authority (i.e., residing within the text, the reader, the
teacher, the classroom community, or some interaction of
these), and sociocultural settings are all brought to the
negotiation task. The teacher's role is one of
orchestration of the instructional setting, and being
knowledgeable about teaching/learning strategies and about
the world.
Reading Comprehension as Transactional
The transactional model takes into account the dynamic nature of language and
both aesthetic and cognitive aspects of reading. According to Rosenblatt (1994,
p. 1063), "Every reading act is an event, or a transaction involving a particular
reader and a particular pattern of signs, a text, and occurring at a particular
time in a particular context. Instead of two fixed entities acting on one
another, the reader and the text are two aspects of a total dynamic situation.
The 'meaning' does not reside ready-made 'in' the text or 'in' the reader but
happens or comes into being during the transaction between reader and text."
Thus, text without a reader is merely a set of marks capable of being interpreted
as written language. However, when a reader transacts with the text, meaning
happens.
Schemata are not viewed as static but rather as active, developing, and ever
changing. As readers transact with text they are changed or transformed, as
is the text. Similarly, "the same text takes on different meanings in
transactions with different readers or even with the same reader in different
contexts or times" (Rosenblatt, 1994, p. 1078).
Reading Comprehension as Transactional-Sociopsycholinguistic
Building on Rosenblatt's transactional model, Goodman (1994)
conceptualizes literacy processing as including reading, writing, and
written texts. He states,
Texts are constructed by authors to be comprehended by readers. The
meaning is in the author and the reader. The text has a potential
to evoke meaning but has no meaning in itself; meaning is not a
characteristic of texts. This does not mean the characteristics of
the text are unimportant or that either writer or reader are independent
of them. How well the writer constructs the text and how well
the reader reconstructs it and constructs meaning will influence
comprehension. But meaning does not pass between writer and reader.
It is represented by a writer in a text and constructed from a text
by a reader. Characteristics of writer, text, and reader will all
influence the resultant meaning. (p. 1103)
In a transactional-sociopsycholinguistic view, the reader has a
highly active role. It is the individual transactions between a
reader and the text characteristics that result in meaning. These
characteristics include physical characteristics such as orthographythe
alphabetic system, spelling, punctuation; format characteristics
such as paragraphing, lists, schedules, bibliographies;
macrostructure or text grammar such as that found in telephone books,
recipe books, newspapers, and letters; and wording of texts such as
the differences found in narrative and expository text.
Understanding is limited, however, by the reader's schemata, making
what the reader brings to the text as important as the text itself.
The writer also plays an important role in comprehension.
Additionally, readers' and writers' schemata are changed through
transactions with the text as meaning is constructed. Readers'
schemata are changed as new knowledge is assimilated and
accommodated. Writers' schemata are changed as new ways of organizing
text to express meaning are developed. According to Goodman (1994):
How well the writer knows the audience and has built the text to suit that audience
makes a major difference in text predictability and comprehension. However, since
comprehension results from reader-text transactions, what the reader knows, who the
reader is, what values guide the reader, and what purposes or interests the reader
has will play vital roles in the reading process. It follows that what is
comprehended from a given text varies among readers. Meaning is ultimately created
by each reader. (p. 1127)
Reading Comprehension as Influenced by Attitude
Mathewson's (1994) Model of Attitude Influence upon
Reading and Learning to Read is derived from the
area of social psychology. This model attempts to
explain the roles of affect and cognition in
reading comprehension.
The core of the attitude-influence model explains
that a reader's whole attitude toward reading
(i.e., prevailing feelings and evaluative beliefs
about reading and action readiness for reading)
will influence the intention to read, in turn
influencing reading behavior.
Intention to read is proposed as the primary
mediator between attitude and reading. Intention is
defined as "commitment to a plan for achieving one
or more reading purposes at a more or less
specified time in the future" (Mathewson, 1994, p.
1135). All other moderator variables (e.g.,
extrinsic motivation, involvement, prior knowledge,
and purpose) are viewed as affecting the attitudereading
relationship by influencing the intention
to read.
Therefore, classroom environments that include
well-stocked libraries, magazines, reading tables,
and areas with comfortable chairs will enhance
students' intentions to read. Mathewson (1994, p.
1148) states, "Favorable attitudes toward reading
thus sustain intention to read and reading as long
as readers continue to be satisfied with reading
outcomes."