Schema Theory: Usefulness For Language Teaching

precis guess Usefulness For Language TeachingThere bay window be no doubt that on the whole our k straight offledge begins with experience, Immanuel Kant (1781 41).What is scheme and dodging possibility?A synopsis (plural synopsista) is termed as a mental structure (which) derives from any the particular experiences we flip had (Nuttall 19827). Schema theory was first proposed by the gestalt psychologist Bartlett (1932), who observed that when people were asked to geminate a story from memory, they often filled in details which were not included in the true moreover upholdd to what they already knew based on their ethnical primer coat. Schema accordingly is ethnicly bound, as shall be shown in this essay. The concept of schema set up be build from anthropology to philosophy and has been necessitateed for two in machinateation and assessment in language learning, examples of which will be referred to and considered later. Kant (1781) claimed that new information , concepts and ideas outhouse only withdraw inwardness when they bath be related to whateverthing already known by the private. This exemplifies how the idea of background acquaintance in language-related performance has been around for centuries, if not rattling coined as a term at the time. McNamara, Miller and Bransford (1991) in Clapham (1996), who referred to the theory as mental manikins which consist of mental tokens, agree that schemata atomic number 18 use in intelligence but that it is not clear what we do with them. There argon two principal(prenominal) types of schema that capture since been termed by theorists ( train 1997). The first is formal schema and is based on the background knowledge of the structure of each given school text. The second is content schema and relates to the background knowledge of the content area. We can see indeed that all schemata relates to background knowledge of some variant. A standardised distinction can be do with pr ocessing skills used for reading, which is discussed later. Carrell (1998) states that these processes are not understood well. In this essay I will, however, essay to address the issue of schema theory along with its practical application in sex act to studies that harbour been carried out in the area. In doing so, I will besides attempt to focus on the main skills involved and the factors that affect its usefulness from the perspective of a language teacher.As teachers of face, we are constantly attempting to actuate formal knowledge for all skills fiddle, and indeed, any exit at all done in class. deep down the context of a multi-skills approach, it to a greater extent often than not leads to processing via receptive skills (reading and perceive) and then progresses to productive skills work ( oration and writing). Research on schema theory has had a great impact on understanding two reading and listening skills, with the tot of research done seemingly focussing on t he former. Thus, for the purposes of this essay I shall refer primarily to the evidence as it is applied to reading skills. Most methodologies investigating the role of schemata or background/prior knowledge are variations on Carrells (1987) paradigm. Traditionally in the schooling of second language comprehension, the emphasis has been focussed al to the eminentest degree exclusively on the language itself rather than the individual attempting to interpret it (Cook 1997). It seems that more recently the language learner themselves, with the knowledge and ideas that they become from the outside world, is perhaps as important a factor as the language itself. Carrell and Eisterhold (198380) point out that one of the around obvious reasons why a specific content schema whitethorn fail to exist for a indorser is that the schema is culturally specific and is not part of a readers cultural background. Aebersold and Field rather philosophically describe it when they say, if the topic is outside of their experience or base of knowledge, they are adrift on an unknown sea (199741). It is then accreditedly the teachers responsibility to help learners and make sealed that they are guided in the right direction by providing that which whitethorn be missing, or at the very least, helping to stimulate what is already there. In an i direct scenario, it would include a combination of some(prenominal) factors.Application to skills processing Processing a text can be seen as a bipartisan process in the midst of the text and the background knowledge or memory schemata of the listener or reader (Carrell 1982). This once again stresses the need to take the learner into account and adverts a more holistic approach to skills work. Cook (1989) states that the mind, when stimulated by call words or phrases in the text or by the context, activates a knowledge schema. The emphasis here is on the cognitive characteristics of schema which allow us to relate entry information to existing information. The reading process, therefore, involves much(prenominal) things as identification of genre, formal structure and topic all of which activate schemata and allow readers to comprehend a text (Swales 199089). In turn, as well as allowing for the scheme of information and knowledge, schemas also allow us to make predictions on the continuation of preaching and check whether our tick matches (Carrell 1998). If it does not, then it would be common grit that we are able to add to our already existing schema. It also makes sense that the more experience (both life and classroom) a learner has, the more in stock(predicate) schemata they will micturate at their disposal and olibanum the better equipped they will be.Focussing as we are mainly on reading skills, a useful distinction can be made here among top-down and bottom-up processing. The former relates to making predictions based on background knowledge (knowledge-based) and the latter to edifice textua l meaning from the individual linguistic units (text-based) (Carrell 1982101). This has also been referred to by Anderson Lynch (1988) as schematic knowledge, which is background knowledge that includes f true(a)/sociological factors and procedural knowledge or how the language is used in discourse versus systemic knowledge, which is the knowledge of the language system and includes semantic, syntactic and phonological features. All of which, when related by context, concur to provide comprehension. So then, in relation to schema theory, it is with the former of both the above that we are most concerned. At times it can seem that theorists are overly concerned with this creation some kind of battle and hence, the use of the word versus above, with one aspect winning over the other. However, evidence points to reading skills involving both equally, working hand-in-hand in order to achieve the best results possible. This judgement is supported by Spiro (in Carrell 1998), who belie ves that virtuoso(prenominal) readers constantly adapt their mode of processing, changing to meet the demands of a particular text/reading emplacement less skilled readers tending to rely overly on processes in one direction and thus experiencing negative egresss on overall comprehension. Overreliance on top-down processing has been referred to as schema interference, or a lack of understanding (Carrell 1998). When faced with un acquainted(predicate) topics, some students may overcompensate for vanish schemata by reading in a slow, text-bound manner other students may overcompensate by wild jibe (Carrell 1988101). Swaffar, Arens and Byrnes (1991) in Clapham (1996) argue that most reading comprehension items only test bottom-up skills and fail to unquestionablely measure the way a reader understands, advertising the use of recall protocols in tests of reading comprehension. This view is supported by Carrell (1998) and has certainly been my experience as a teacher of English. We can surmise then that it is our responsibility as teachers to help make learners advised of the importance of both types in relation to one another and attempt to provide the right balance in order to achieve the great degree of comprehension possible. The form of detrimental processing mentioned here is supported by a considerably deal of related studies, some of the most significant of which I will now present in order to provide further validity to the concept of schema and schema theory.StudiesResearch carried out by Johnson in Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) suggests that a text on a familiar topic is better recalled than a similar text on an strange topic. Swales (1990), believes that this and other research supports the expectation that when both content and form are familiar the texts will be relatively accessible. It seems evident then that the greater the dissimilitude between the L1 and L2, the greater the difficulty in interpretation. Carrell and Eisterhold state tha t some key concepts may be absent in the schemata of some non-native readers or they may have alternate interpretations (198387). An obvious example we can strain to better exemplify this idea, are life rituals, such as celebrations that include weddings and festivals. One cultures concept of Christmas, for example, may contrast completely with anothers or may not, in fact, exist at all. These gaps or differences in cultural knowledge then need to be bridged in order to comprehend relevant information to be considered and worked on. In Carrells (1987) bailiwick mentioned previously, subjects remembered the most when both the content and rhetorical form was familiar to them. However, when only content or only form was unfamiliar, unfamiliar content caused more difficulty for the readers than did unfamiliar form. This has obvious implications for the classroom and language learning, and suggests the common sense idea that teachers should attempt to choose topics and texts which le arners have some concrete understanding of, especially when it comes to actual content involved. The form of a text then is something that learners are perhaps better able to deal with and which can be analysed, in the form a model for example, and then compared with the concept of form in relation to what they already know or are aware of or vice-versa. A conclusive study was conducted by Steffensen and Joag-Dev (1984) victimization two descriptions of weddings, which found that readers comprehended texts some their own cultures more accurately than the other, which is no real surprise. Similarly, studies by Johnson (1981) and Kang (1992) have revealed that cultural origin of a text/story has a greater picture on comprehension than syntactic or semantic complexity. Also, results suggested that prior cultural experience prepared readers for comprehension of familiar information in a text. This again puts the emphasis on the importance of cultural background and how necessary it i s for teachers to spend a good amount of time making sure that cultural concepts are considered and understood, whatever the form may be. However, the previous study showed that exposure to any unfamiliar words does not seem to have a significant effect on reading comprehension. This would then perhaps suggest that we do not need to give similar weight to the consideration of vocabulary, though we should, of course, bear this in mind when approaching texts.Carrell (1998245) asks the relevant pedagogic question Can we improve students reading by helping them build background knowledge on the topic prior to reading, through appropriate pre-reading activities? This then, for whichever theme and skill we are about to introduce and practise, is the key question. Were it not true, the implications for current methodology, and indeed ELT materials would be vast. Fortunately for all involved, this does not seem to be the case. The available research shown above, along with the likes of Ste vens (1982) and Hayes and Tierney (1982) in Carrell (1998), suggest that all the effort of activating schema or schemata, is genuinely worthwhile. The latter study found that presenting background information related to the topic to be learned helped readers learn from the text regardless of how that background information was presented or how specific or usual it was. As Stevens says A teacher of reading qualification thus be viewed as a teacher of relevant information as well as a teacher of reading skills (1982328).LevelsDifferent pre-reading activities may be more or less effective with different proficiency levels. Hudson (1982) in Carrell (1998) found that a more explicit pre-reading activity, such as discussing pictures and making predictions, had a significantly greater facilitating effect on reading comprehension when compared to another less specific type for example, vocabulary related. However, close summary of the data showed that the effect was only significant for beginner and intermediate level ESL readers, with no real difference for advanced levels. This might then suggest that higher(prenominal) level learners are better able to deal with a lack of schema activation. Another significant issue is that, as lower level students may have the background knowledge but not the language skills to discuss them in English, their L1 might be used to access schemata but teachers should present the related vocabulary or otherwise a schema has been activated but learning the L2 has not been facilitated (Aebersold and Field 199777).ELT materials designWhen I first considered exactly what schema theory was, while admittedly not being fully sure, I was aware that it mustiness have something to do with how, as language teachers, we are encouraged to warm up learners with an introduction that they can relate to and to ascertain exactly what it is that they know in relation to the subject matter and the coverage of a lesson and then to provide that which may be missing. So let us first begin by considering the actual activities that are used to introduce a topic. Carrell (1998) offers a anatomy of means in which relevant schemata may be constructed, including discussion, real-life experiences, visual aids, text previewing, introduction and discussion of key vocabulary, and key-word/concept association activities. I would add brainstorming and use of quotations to this list. Although helpful, Carrell (1998) is of the opinion that these pre-reading activities are probably insufficient to be used only by themselves and teachers will almost certainly need to supply additional information freeing on to suggest that it is probably wise to assume that pre-reading activities work best when used in a variety of combinations, believing that such activities must both build both new background knowledge, as well as activating existing background knowledge. So then, they are to be considered as a starting point and a springboard or foundation for teachers to utilise and learners to work from.The utilisation of schema theory in materials design is, in my opinion, completely evident and there for all to see. I do not feel it is necessary to include an extensive list of ELT materials in order to provide such examples, as there is such a great amount available. I think it can safely be stated that the introductory activity types do not vary too greatly and can be found in most good ELT textbooks examples of which are Cutting Edge and (New) Headway, which are now considered classic ELT coursebooks and are widely used in the field along with many others that I have used myself in the past. Thus, I will instead focus on an example that I am currently using in my own teaching. As a teacher of English for Academic Purposes, I tend to use the Language Leader series of coursebooks along with other related materials, such as teachers books and so on, which I find both effective and user-friendly. I currently teach mid to high level learners who have an arts background and are working towards arts related courses in higher education such as degree courses, and so it is appropriate that I choose material that focuses specifically on this area. The beginning of Unit 9 in Language Leader Upper-Intermediate (see appendix 1) provides examples of the activities mentioned above and include, for example, a picture of a Dali painting along with a quote to consider with some related questions for discussion, forrader moving onto what constitutes art and asking the students to read a text (leaflet p.91) related to the theme of art This is a typical example of how schema theory is utilised in ELT materials and very similar activities can, in fact, be seen at the start of each unit. However, as Carrell (1998) suggests, this is not enough and so, we as teachers are reach the responsibility of deciding exactly what to do with it. There are, of course, teachers books that help to provide ideas for usage which can be highly b eneficial for inspiring ideas, especially for teachers without the experience that helps to know how to approach such an activity. In using the material in the classroom myself, I have taken what is there and, as Carrell (1998) has suggested, added variety to it and attempted to bring it to life. For example, rather than just using one picture that is in the coursebook, show learners a range of examples that include a variety of genres and will then link into later activities that require learners to consider what constitutes art and include such examples (see activity 1b). Learners might also be encouraged prior to the lesson to bring in their own examples and thus start the activation and thinking process before the lesson has even begun. It could, and arguably should, link to work done in previous lessons that may include visits to art museums and galleries. This then is a kind of controllable variable in that we hopefully already have an idea of the background knowledge that lea rners will bring in from previous learning and the outside world. Thus, the more we know our students, the more it makes sense that we are in a position whereby we are better able to know what might work best. This is an area that I feel could be expanded upon and explored in greater detail by those who carry out studies pertaining to the area of schema and schema theory. While the learner is indeed now taken into account, the actual relationship and depth of shared and common knowledge between the teacher and their learners, plus amongst learners themselves, is something that rarely seems to be mentioned.Further application As well as in relation to teaching, schema theory can be applied to testing also whether it be for diagnostic or assessment purposes. Of course, there are far too many examples of testing for us to consider here but it can be said that many of these forms of testing are very limited. As an IELTS examiner, it can sometimes seem as though one is preparing learner s with strategies and techniques in order to pass a test, rather than to actually improve their English language skills. With all the skills being tested individually, we could apply schema theory across the board and suggest that the test-taker is not always prepared with necessary schematic knowledge before actually taking the exam. However, not all will be aware of the usefulness of this, and instead take the test(s) cold. They will then be expected to respond to and answer questions that they have a very limited knowledge of, which is a major(ip) criticism of the exam. For example, if they have not previously considered the effectuate of globalisation, they will not have the necessary schematic knowledge needed to answer the question. A better method, in my opinion, would be to make the exam more integrative and thus testing more than one skill at a time. For example, rather than testing receptive and productive skills separately, a combination could be used in which learners r ead a text or listen to an extract and then have to respond by writing or speaking about that which they have just been exposed to. That way we are then better able to actually provide the necessary information which might not be there in the first place. For example, learners might be asked to summarise a text or extract after reading or listening to it. It makes sense that test-takers will more likely come with the formal schema but not necessarily the content schema required. It will be interesting to see how the new Pearson Test deals with this aspect, especially being a computer based exam.Conclusion Despite the current popularity of pre-reading/listening activities, there might be restrictions to their use in ELT and they may not always work as intended. Cook (1994) stated that schemas can be restrictive even if they allow us to process communication. It has been proved that applications of schema theory do not always mean that comprehension has been improved, particularly wh ere there is insufficient attention to the details of a given text, or where schema-interference increases due to the activation of dominant or negative schemata (Stott 2001). Also, there is evidence that the contextual and background information given may not always necessarily be adopted by the learners. However, there is little doubt that schema theory has positively influenced the teaching of reading and listening and that pre-activities can help to improve a learners comprehension in many situations. Therefore, it makes sense for teachers to use such activities but not be assumptive that what we expect is in fact reality. In other words, teachers should make sure that they check the usefulness of the activities used and pay close attention to possible schema-interference or non-activation. In essence, we must do the most possible in order to increase comprehension, and thus, maximise overall performance.BibliographyAebersold, J. and Field, M. (1997) From Reader to training Tea cher. Cambridge Cambridge University raiseAnderson, A. and Lynch, T. (1998) Listening. Oxford Oxford University Press Bartlett, F. (1932) Remembering. Cambridge Cambridge University PressCarrell, P. (1982) Cohesion is not coherence TESOL Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 4Carrell, P. and Eisterhold, J. (1983) Schema conjecture and ESL nurture Pedagogy, in Carrell, P., Devine, J. and Eskey, D. (eds) (1988) interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge Cambridge University PressCarrell, P. (September, 1987) Content and Formal Schemata in ESL Reading TESOL QUARTERLY. Vol. 21, No. 3 Southern Illinois UniversityCarrell, P. (1988) Some Causes of Text-boundedness and Schema Interference in ESL Reading, in Carrell, P., Devine, J. and Eskey, D.E. (eds) (1988) Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge Cambridge University PressCarrell, P. (1998) Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge Cambridge University PressClapham, C. (1996) Studies in Langua ge interrogation The Development of IELTS 4. Cambridge Cambridge University PressCook, G. (1994) Discourse and Literature. Oxford Oxford University PressCook, G. (January, 1997) Key concepts in ELT ELT Journal. Volume 51/1 Oxford University PressCook, G. (1989) Discourse in language teaching A scheme for teacher education. Oxford Oxford University PressJohnson, P. (1981) Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a text TESOL Quarterly 15(2), 169-181.Kang, H. (1992) The effects of culture-specific knowledge upon ESL reading comprehension School of Education Review, 4, 93-105.Kant, I. (1781) Critique of pure reasonMaslow, A. (July, 1943) A theory of human motivation Psychological Review Vol. 50(4), 370-396.Nuttall, C. (1982) Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. HeinemannSinghal, M. (1998) A Comparison of L1 and L2 Reading Cultural Differences and Schema, http//iteslj.org/Articles/Singhal-ReadingL1L2.html last accessed on 14.11.09Swal es, J. (1990) Genre Analysis. Cambridge Cambridge University PressSteffensen, M. and Joag-Dev, C. (1984) Cultural knowledge and reading, In J. Alderson A. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a Foreign Language (pp. 48-61). New York LongmanStott, N. (November 2001) Helping ESL Students Become Better Readers Schema Theory Applications and Limitations The Internet TESL Journal Vol. VII, No. 11Tannen (1993) Framing in Discourse. Oxford University Press US