ResearchonSchemaTheory：PedagogicalImplicationsforReadingTeachingofL2StudentsinChina

王班

【Abstract】Schema theory has been introduced to China for more than two decades， and attracted attention of teachers in the English reading teaching field all over China. The traditional top-down process and bottom-up process were criticized by Chinese scholars，whilst the interactive process， which is also known as Schema theory model， was advocated by Chinese scholars. However， most studies conducted by Chinese researchers aimed at exploring a universal method to facilitate students to activate their schemata； whilst the study on exploring different methods， with regard to different effect that the various schemata may exert on reading comprehension， is far from enough. In this research， instead of exploring a universal method， I compared the different effect that various schemata may bring to studentsreading comprehension， and examined to which schema teachers should pay more attention in the process of teaching reading.

【Keyword】schema theory； content schema； linguistic schema； formal schema； pedagogical implication

【摘要】圖示理論在中國的研究已經(jīng)超過二十年，關于其對于閱讀教學的影響，也吸引了大批學者的興趣。傳統(tǒng)的“自下而上”，“自上而下”教學法因其自身存在的弊端，被廣大學者所批駁，而“交互式教學”也就是圖示理論為依據(jù)的教學法，卻被中國廣大學者所主張。在這篇文章中，我將比較不同圖示對于中國學生閱讀教學帶來的不同影響，從而發(fā)現(xiàn)哪一種圖示對學生的閱讀效果影響最為顯著。

【關鍵詞】圖示理論 內(nèi)容圖示 語言圖示 形式圖示

Background

Throughout academic history， reading has often been regarded as an essential ability for those who are learning a foreign language. The approaches to the teaching of reading， in this context， have been widely explored， and persuasively argued， by numerous researchers over many years （Goodman， 1968； Gough， 1972； Rumelhart， 1977； ）.

Traditionally， the approaches to teaching reading are mainly focused on two processes. These are known as bottom-up process and top-down process. From the perspective of bottom-up process， the reader is deemed to be a passive participant in the activity of reading； thus the meaning of a text is determined by the writer， rather than the reader.

With regard to the top-down process， reading is regarded as an interactive process between the readers， already existing， prior knowledge and the text. From the perspective of the proponents of the top-down process， Goodman （1968） regarded reading as a confirmation process of the readers previous expectations； whilst Smith （2004） stated that reading is a process in which the central meaning is obvious once ones background knowledge is activated. Goodman （1967） also referred to reading as a“psycholinguistic guessing game”.

Due to the limitations of these two approaches， it is necessary to explore a new approach to facilitate L2 students reading. Therefore， the interactive approach， which is also known as the schema theory model， was proposed by Rumelhart （1977）， and further developed by Rumelhart and McClelland （1982）. From the perspective of the interactive process， reading is an integrated approach which utilizes and applies both top-down and bottom-up process simultaneously.

Claasifications of schema theory

The classifications of schema theory vary in accordance with the different standards. Carrell （1988） divided schemata into two parts； namely， content schema and formal schema. However， Cook （1994） divided schemata into three categories， which are： world schema， text schema and language schema. In this research， in order to explore the influence of schemata on reading comprehension， by taking the different classifications into consideration， I intend to divide schemata into three categories， which are： linguistic schema， formal schema and content schema. A content schema refers to the previously existing background knowledge held by the reader of the text； a linguistic schema refers to the readers knowledge of words and sentences； and a formal schema refers to the readers knowledge about the rhetoric， structure and genre of a text.

Discussion

Since the 1980s， researchers and scholars have specifically studied the application of schema theory in the teaching of reading to L2 students.However， when it comes to the question of which type of schema is the most important in facilitating reading， Anderson， Pichert and Shirey （1983） assert that a content schema is much more important than a text schema in facilitating reading comprehension. Carrell and Eisterhold （1988） suggest that， if the students fail to activate the appropriate schema during their reading， their comprehension may be less complete. As far as i cam concerned， for L2 students， cultural differences may lead to missing or the false activation of schemata in their reading. And culture can exert a great effect on peoples perception of the outside world. Therefore， due to the existing cultural differences， the content schema of L2 students may differ from those of L1 students to some extent. Furthermore， the differences in culture will lead to the absence of specified content schema among the L2 readers.In terms of linguistic schema， as differing languages have differing words systems and grammar rules， it is important for L2 students to activate a proper linguistic schema in their reading process.If the linguistic schema fails to be activated， then reading cannot be facilitated. Nevertheless， the activation of content schema will compensate for the lack of a linguistic schema to some extent. On the other hand， a linguistic schema is an extension of a content schema.

With regards to formal schema， a great number of empirical researches conducted by Hinds （1983） and Carrell （1983） has proved that the activation of a formal schema （text schema） will facilitate reading comprehension. The inadequate teaching of the formal schema may lead to unfamiliarity with the application of the formal schema， and thus students may not possess the knowledge about how to activate their formal schema in the process of reading. The activation rate of the linguistic schema was ranked the lowest among those three types of schema.The mismatching interpretations， between teachers and students， regarding which schema should be given priority may be explained by the teaching methods currently applied by most Chinese teachers. As the most influential teaching method in China， the grammar-translation method exerts a great effect on the implementation of teaching for Chinese teachers.

By carefully analysing the findings in detail， the pedagogical implications for the teachers of L2 students can be presented. The large difference between the teachers and students regarding to which area they should pay more attention is the most important issue that should be made apparent to teachers in Chinese secondary education.The effect of activating the content schema is the most conspicuous one， and the students showed a great interest in this area， preferring this kind of knowledge to be taught. On the contrary， the linguistic schema， which the teachers used to regard as the most important schema for reading teaching， did not work as well as they expected， and in this research the effect of activating the linguistic schema to facilitate reading is less obvious than the effect of activating the content schema.

Therefore， in order to improve the efficiency of reading teaching in China， it is necessary for the teachers to adjust their focus in the process of teaching reading， and the importance of activating the content schema cannot be underestimated.

References：

[1]Carrell，P.L.，& Eisterhold.J.C.（1983）.Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy.In P.L.Carrell，J.Devine & D.E.Eskey （Eds.） Interactive approaches to second language reading （pp.73-89）.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

[2]Ellis，N.C.（2001）.Memory for language.In P.Robinson （Ed.），Cognition and second language instruction （pp.33–68）.Cambridge，England：Cambridge University press.

[3]Eskey，D.E.（1973）.A model program for teaching advanced reading to students of English as a second language.Language Learning，23（2），169?184.

[4]Eskey，D.E.（1988）.Holding in the bottom：an interactive approach to the language problems of second language readers.In P.L.Carrell，J.Devine & D.E.Eskey （Eds.） Interactive approaches to second language reading （pp.93-100）.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

[5]Goodman，K.S.（1968）.The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process.In K.S.Goodman （Ed.），The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process （pp.15-26）.Detroit：Wayne State University Press.

[6]Gough，P.B.（1972）.One second of reading.In J.F.Kavanaugh.，& I.G.Mattingly （Eds.），Language by ear and by eye：The relationship between speech and reading （pp.331-358）.Cambridge，MA：MIT Press.

[7]MacAndrew，R.（2002）.CAE study pack.Oxford：Oxford University Press.

[8]Piaget，J.（1970）.Piagets theory.In P.H.Mussen （Ed.），Carmichaels handbook of child psychology （pp.703-732）.New York：Wiley.

[9]Rumelhart，D.E.（1980）.Schemata：the building blocks of cognition.In R.J.Spiro，B.C.Bruce & W.E.Brewer （Eds.）.Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension （pp.38-58）.Hillsdale ，NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[10]Rumelhart，D.E.，& McClelland，J.L.（1982）.An interactive activation model of the effects of context in perception.Psychological review，89（1），60-94.