Schema Theory

Abstract

This article presents an overview of schema theory, a learning theory that explains how prior knowledge is organized into long-term memory. This theory asserts that learners comprehend new texts or new situations when they bring to mind a schema that illustrates the ideas in the message. Knowledge is stored into "slots," with each slot containing related information. As knowledge is stored into these slots, these structures set up expectations for the learner when new knowledge is encountered for interpretation. Typical ways to activate knowledge within schemata include determining the background or prior knowledge that learners already possess. By making these links, learners' schemata changes and learning takes place.

Keywords Comprehension; Conceptual Schema; Intertextual Schema; Linguistic Schema; Prior Knowledge; Purpose-Sensitive Schema; Story Grammar; Textual Schema

Overview

Schema theory explains how learning occurs when learners integrate new knowledge with prior knowledge stored in long-term memory. Tompkins and McGee (1993) define schema as "a mental bundle of knowledge that holds everything we know about a topic" (p.143). When learning occurs, schema is modified as new knowledge is stored in the brain. In other words, learning occurs when schemata grow and change. Schema (plural schemata) is an abstract framework that organizes knowledge into long-term memory by putting information into what might be considered slots, with each slot containing related information. As knowledge is stored into these slots, these structures set up expectations for the learner when new knowledge is encountered for interpretations. Within this framework are clusters of related knowledge, experiences, feelings, and ideas that guide learners' interpretations, inferences, expectations, and attention as ideas are comprehended (Roe, Stoodt-Hill, & Burns, 2007). This theory asserts that learners comprehend a text or new situation when they bring to mind a schema that illustrates the ideas in the message. Schema is internalized in the brain and that guides and controls a learner's use of subsequent information and response to experiences. Without schemata to guide comprehension, learners could make little sense out of texts or new information. Schemata aid learners in making connections to their prior knowledge. Learners comprehend a message when they are able to bring to mind a schema that gives a good account of the objects and events described in the message. Comprehension is a matter of activating this schema and then constructing a new schema that provides a coherent explanation of these new ideas (Anderson, 1994).

The original concept of schema was introduced in 1932 by British psychologist Sir Frederic Bartlett. His seminal work in reconstructive memory demonstrated that long-term memories are neither fixed nor immutable but are constantly being adjusted as schemata evolves through experience. The theory was further developed through Brewer and Treyens (1981), building on Bartlett's ideas. They state that new information that falls within a learner's schema can be easily remembered and incorporated into his or her worldview. In other cases, when new information is perceived that does not fit into schema, then learners either ignore or forget it. When this information can't be ignored, existing schemata must be changed and a new schema is formed.

Originally, cognitive theoreticians saw the child as a tabula rasa, a blank slate not yet affected by knowledge or impressions gained by experience. In the 1970s, a new focus on schema theory evolved as a result of work by computer scientist Marvin Minsky (1975). Through his work with computers and their corresponding human-like abilities, such as perceiving and understanding the world, Minsky concluded that humans were using their stored knowledge about the world to carry out many of the processes that he was trying to emulate in his computers. Through transition of thought processes, cognitive psychologists now see that young minds are a set of empty shelves or slots that are filled, modified, or expanded by learning. These slots constitute the schemata by which the child organizes information.

Minsky's work impacted the field of cognitive psychology through psychologist David Rumelhart's (1980) work on mental representation of complex knowledge. In the 1990s, Richard Anderson's work on schemata theory in education provided an account for how prior knowledge might influence the acquisition of new knowledge. The term schema originated with Jean Piaget in 1926 and was expanded by Anderson's work. Anderson (1994) states that what teachers need to do to activate and enhance schema is: to teach general knowledge and generic concepts; to strengthen connections between schemata and new ideas through discussion, songs, role play, illustration aids, and explanations about how a piece of knowledge applies; and to help learners build prior knowledge. In 1988, schema theory shifted to incorporate what is called "purpose-sensitive schema." The idea that knowledge is stored in slots has evolved to include the storage of chunks of information, as chunks of information are more complex in nature than singular points. These chunks, when paired with new knowledge, form more complex schemata. Purpose-sensitive schema accounts for more effective problem-solving and construction of meaning and for the assembling of new knowledge that goes far beyond the original and more simplistic hierarchical model presented by Rumelhart (Ruddell & Unran, 1994).

According to Ruddell and Unran (1994), schema appears to function by way of the following properties:

• Presenting procedural information allows schema to become activated

• Schema can acquire knowledge from higher-level schema

• Schema inferences can be triggered by text

• Schema is stored hierarchically

This schema-theoretic perspective of comprehension works on the premise that what learners know about a topic—their prior knowledge—affects the ease or difficulty in understanding new knowledge. Pearson and Johnson (1978) state that the process of activating and building schemata into long-term memory builds bridges between new and prior knowledge. Underdeveloped schemata—a lack of prior knowledge—result in learners' inability to understand. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1982) assert that by the time learners reach school age, they have learned the schemata common to conversations; they have less schemata concerning written composition.

There are several schemata types: content or conceptual schema, textual, intertextual, and linguistic content or conceptual schemata are based on world knowledge. When learners have prior knowledge of a subject, they bring schemata of that given topic to new information. Learners' schema, or their organized knowledge of the world, provides much of the basis for comprehending, learning, and remembering the ideas in stories and texts (Anderson, 1994). This schemata represents a wide range of experiences and understandings that have been acquired both in and out of school. Content schema also includes systems of factual knowledge, values, and cultural conventions. Life experiences can also impact interpretation. As Ruddell and Unran (1994) point out, "Meaning that is understood from text is not in the text itself, but in the learner, in his or her . . . schematic knowledge" (p. 1056).

In textual schemata (the rhetorical structure of different modes of text), learners have prior knowledge of the structural characteristics of written language. This schemata of prior knowledge of the structural characteristics of text helps students to anticipate, follow, and organize information and enables learners to find important information in a new text. For example, once learners activate schemata, they can anticipate ideas and information and make inferences about content. Learners can understand a text based on past schematic understandings of that type of text. Once learners have experience with poetry, they have developed a mental schemata of poetry and can apply this understanding when experiencing new poetry (Roe, Stoodt-Hill, and Burns, 2007). Narrative text structure is called story grammar and relates to setting, characters, plot structure, climax, and resolution.

Intertextual schemata occur when there appears to be links between ideas discovered in one text that can be applied to another. Comprehension occurs when knowledge of ideas in one text aid in students' understanding of ideas in another. Linguistic schemata are schemata by which we produce and comprehend language rules. Innate language capacity must be stimulated and supported by new knowledge about language that learners acquire over time. These linguistic schemata include sentence structure, grammatical inflections, spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, and cohesive structures.

There are many ways in which teachers can enhance building of schemata, such as providing discussion; developing dramas and storytelling; oral reading; viewing television shows, videos, and websites; examining models; and using computers. Teachers can maximize schema by tapping into learners' prior knowledge so that schema can be applied from one idea to the next. As teachers' present relevant background information, learners can construct meaningful interpretations of text and create new schemata. Effective teaching can also build schema to promote strategies that tap into forgotten schema or by filling in the gaps of learning for those learners who lack critical information to make connections.

Typical ways to activate knowledge include determining the background or prior knowledge that learners already possess. Teachers then implement preliminary activities such as small group discussions to relate new concepts to prior knowledge. If learners already understand some concepts, they are now ready for more in-depth understanding of the topic. By making more links, learners' schemata changes and learning takes place.

For most people, day-to-day activities that require schemata are fairly automatic; learners quickly organize new perceptions into schemata and act quickly and effectively without effort. There are some impediments to the development of schema in English language learners (ELL). For ELLs, culturally determined first language schema can interfere with building new understanding. However, these ELL schemata can be overcome by avoiding cultural bias and providing ELL students with information that helps build bridges and create schemata. Schallet and Martin (2003) suggest that what learners already know influences the quantity and quality of what they can learn. Learners can fail to learn because of missing or unactivated prior knowledge. If learners hold misconceptions of a subject—or incorrect prior knowledge—this can interfere with learning. Even though misconceptions are hard to change, teachers have an opportunity to change these misconceptions by creating instructional settings that enable learners to reject their former misconceptions and learn new schema.

Schemata should be viewed as webs rather than hierarchies. The theory of schemata has evolved to include the concept that schema not only interprets but also predicts situations (Windmayer, 2007). Information that does not fit into schema may not be comprehended, or comprehended correctly. Through an extension of schemata theory, learners are thought to actively build schemata and revise them in light of new information, involving a context-specific body of knowledge that learners apply to new situations. What really matters, though, is that learners are able to construct knowledge through their prior learning, and that they also have knowledge about how they learn and plan their goals.

Applications

Preview Guides

Preview guides are prereading guides that help students better understand a text prior to their reading of it. They provide advance organizers to cue readers that new knowledge will be introduced. In this way, learners can relate their own prior knowledge to any new ideas developed in the guide.

Tapping into Prior Knowledge

Rumelhart (1991) states that comprehension will improve as a learner's fund of relevant background information and awareness of text organization is heightened. There are many ways for teachers to tap into prior knowledge and activate schema by providing advanced organizers:

• Link new information to that which is already familiar and understood. Ask the question: What do you know about this topic?

• Make inferences.

• Develop brainstorming strategies by relating words, phrases, or excerpts from reading passages and making personal connections through association.

• Develop prereading plans, so that learners develop basic concepts.

• Discuss something learners have done that is similar to an event they will read about and hypothesize what will happen in the story.

• Explicitly state main ideas prior to reading.

• Teach learners to differentiate between questions whose answers can be easily found in the text, those hidden in the text, and those that require the learner to rely entirely on prior knowledge. Teach them to know that learners can find the answers, whether it is within the text or within their schemata.

Developing Schema in Reading

Reading is an interactive process that requires tapping into available schemata at many levels. These levels include understanding of graphophenemic, morphemic, semantic, syntactic, pragmatic, and interpretive schema. Anderson (1994) suggests that learners' schema affects both learning and remembering of information and ideas in text as they read. According to Anderson, there are six functions of schema during the reading process:

• Schema provides scaffolding of ideas for learning information from new texts. A schema provides a slot in the brain for certain text information; new information is easily learned. This new information fits the slot of prior knowledge.

• Schema provides the basis for determining what is important for learners to pay attention to within a text. Through schema, learners know what information is important to learn.

• Schema provides learners the ability to make inferences that go beyond literal information.

• By relying on schemata, learners can search their memory in an orderly fashion to find the information in the slots to apply to new information.

• When there are gaps in memory, learners' schemata helps generate hypotheses about missing information.

• Schema provides a framework that enables learners to produce summaries that include important pieces of information and eliminate unimportant ones.

Anderson (1994) further suggests that there are ways that teachers can activate reading schema in learners. Teachers should activate prior knowledge before reading texts. They can ask learners to remember relevant experiences that might be similar to those that characters might be experiencing. Through mini-lessons, they can build prerequisite knowledge that will help learners comprehend text. Teachers can have learners search their store of knowledge and integrate prior knowledge with new knowledge. They can also provide advanced organizers and structured overviews prior to reading a text.

Direct Instruction in Text Structure

Critical to learners' interpretation of text is the development of narrative story grammar schemata and schemata for expository writing. Schemata for narrative story grammar includes setting, characters, plot structure, climax, and resolution. Schemata for expository writing includes comparing/contrasting, cause and effect, problem-solving, thesis-support, and enumeration of ideas (Ruddell & Unran, 1994). Direct or explicit instruction in narrative and expository structures can lead to improved understanding and recall of story information, as learners tap into prior knowledge. By tapping into schema, learners can rely on prior knowledge about text features that will be useful in the comprehension process. Instruction in the organization of text can place the schemata in learners' frameworks so that learners can become stronger readers.

Providing Adequate Textual Support

Teachers must be aware that choosing appropriate texts for learners is essential in building schemata. If texts are of poor quality, such as having inadequate explanations and poor writing of passages, then learners will not improve their comprehension and recall.

Viewpoints

Construction-Integration Model

Rumelhart (1991) challenges the concept that knowledge is portrayed by static, fully formed structures. Rather, schema is constructed in response to input. Through an extension of schemata theory, the constructionist model makes the claim that the learner's knowledge is represented in patterns of connections, all interrelated and connected. However, Alexander (1991) implies that there are strengths to both the schemata model and the construction model. He states that learner's knowledge is always in one of two states, tacit or explicit. Through tacit knowledge, learners construct a responsive, dynamic way to develop the schemata they need in their explicit knowledge to make sense of new text, new input and new structures.

Schema Theory and Minority Learners

Minority children may face additional challenges in comprehending reading material simply because their schemata do not match those of the majority culture. In other words, minority children often do not have the experiences that log into schemata that other children may have experienced. They either do not have the skills to activate prior knowledge or they simply do not possess this knowledge in their schemata. Branstord suggests that there are many levels in which minority children lack the schemata necessary to learn: they may have absolutely no information in their schema about a particular concept; they may know something about a concept but may not be able to make the connections between prior knowledge and new knowledge; or they may reflect inappropriately to the subtle differences in schemata to make interpretations. Also, teachers may compromise these learners' ability to build new schema by phrasing questions inappropriately.

Terms and Concepts

Advanced Organizers: Advanced organizers assist students in applying what they know to what they are learning. Advanced organizers help teachers clarify the big ideas the students will be exploring, identify what students already know, and develop links between the two. In order to teach effectively, teachers must know what students already know about the subject being taught. Some examples of advanced organizers include: KWL (Know, Want to Know, Learn) charts; four quadrants; sort and predict; Venn diagrams; brainstorm and categorize; going for the big ideas; and, concept mapping.

Comprehension: Comprehension is the cognitive process that involves the intentional interaction between reader and text to acquire meaning.

Inference: Inference is the filling in of missing ideas and information.

Misconceptions: A misconception occurs when a learner has prior knowledge that is incorrect or biased

Prior Knowledge: Prior knowledge is the pre-existing acquired knowledge, attitudes or experiences that a learner possesses.

Schema: A mental bundle of knowledge that holds everything a learner knows about a topic. Plural is schemata.

Slots: Slots are storage spaces in the brain that stores knowledge to be retrieved at another time.

Story Grammar: Story grammar is narrative text structure that relates to setting, characters, plot structure, climax and resolution.

Bibliography

Alexander, P., Schallert, D., and V. Hare. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315–345.

Anderson, R. (1994). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In Ruddell, R., Ruddell, M., and Singer, H. (Ed.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (4th ed.), (pp. 469–482). Newark, NJ: IRA.

Bereiter, C., and Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser. Advances in Instructional Psychology, 2, (pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brewer, W., and Treyens, J. (1981). Role and schemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 207–230.

Little, D. C., & Box, J. (2011). The use of a specific schema theory strategy-semantic mapping-to facilitate vocabulary development and comprehension for at-risk readers. Reading Improvement, 48, 24–31. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=61134382&site=ehost-live

Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Wilson. The psychology of computer vision, 2, (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pearson, P., and Johnson, S. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Roe, B., Stoodt-Hill, B., and Burns, P. (2007). The content areas. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Ruddell, R., and Unran, N. (1994). Reading as a meaning-construction process: The reader, the text, and the teacher. In Ruddell, R., Ruddell, M., and Singer, H. (Ed.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (4th ed.), (pp. 996-1056). Newark, NJ: IRA.

Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, and W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Issues In Reading Comprehension . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schallert, D., and Martin, D. (2003). In Flood, J., Jensen, J., D. Ladd., and J. Squire (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (pp. 31–45). New York: MacMillen.

Tompkins, G., and McGee, L. (1993). Teaching reading with literature: Case studies to action plans . New York: Merrill.

Tse, D., et al. (2011). Schema-dependent gene activation and memory encoding in neocortex. Science, 333(6044), 891–895. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65150482&site=ehost-live

van den Bosch, A., & Daelemans, W. (2013). Implicit schemata and categories in memory-based language processing. Language & Speech, 56, 309–328. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90217187&site=ehost-live

Windmayer, S. (2007, June). Schema theory: An Introduction . Retrieved from http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledgebase/strategies/cognitivism/SchemaTheory.htm

Yanmei Liu (2015). An empirical study of schema theory and its role in reading comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 1349–1356. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=110917370&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Suggested Reading

Biela, A., Lindgoes, J., Yi-Guang, L., McKeachie, W. (1989, April). Cognitive schemas in social perception. Multivariate Behavior Research, 24, 195–209. Retrieved from EBSCO Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=6374222&site=ehost-live

Boland, J. (1997). The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 423–484.

Boland, R., Singh, J., Salipante, P., Aram, J., Fay, S., and P. Kanawattenachai. (2001, April). Knowledge representations and knowledge transfers. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 393–413. Retrieved from EBSCO Business Service Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4377991&site=ehost-live

Bensoussan, M. (1998, October). Schema effects in EFL reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 21, 213–226. Retrieved from EBSCO Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10452863&site=ehost-live

Brozo, W., and Simpson, M. (2003). Teachers, teachers, learners (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice.

Carswell, E., and Roubinek, D. (1977 May). Uncaging learning: A curriculum proposal. Educational Leadership, 34, 619–624. Retrieved from EBSCO Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7730242&site=ehost-live

Dahlin, B. (2001, September). Critique of the schema concept. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(3), 287–300. Retrieved from EBSCO Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5202997&site=ehost-live

Dewhurst, D., and Lamb, S. (2005, December). Educational stories: Engaging teachers in educational theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37, 907–917. Retrieved from EBSCO Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18942922&site=ehost-live

Khodadady, E., & Yazdi, B. H. (2015). English language identity: Schema and factor based approach. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(4), 883–892. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=108369219&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Marzano, R. (1991). Language, the language arts and thinking. In Flood, J., Jensen, J., D. Ladd., and J. Squire (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (pp. 559–586). New York: MacMillen.

Mulligan, J. (1979, Spring). Schema learning theory: An approach to perceptual learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 197–207. Retrieved from EBSCO Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18824311&site=ehost-live

Nassaji, H. (2002, June). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52, 439–481.

Norris, S., and Phillips, L. (1987). Explanation of reading comprehension: Schema theory, and critical thinking theory. Teachers College Record, 89, 281–306.

Rumelhart, D. (1991). The architecture of the mind: A Connectionist approach. In M. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 133–159). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Savage, J. (1994). Teaching reading using literature. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.

Shea, C., and Wulf, G. (2005, March). Schema theory: A critical appraisal and reevaluation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 37, 85–101. Retrieved from EBSCO Education Research Complete. ‗HL0:AN:16014725::‗http://search.edscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16014725&site=ehost-live_hl_

Suaalii, F. (2007). Conceptual model of learning to improve understanding of high school chemistry. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18, 101–110. Retrieved from EBSCO Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23316465&site=ehost-live

Sweller, J., and Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–234. Retrieved from EBSCO Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7388112&site=ehost-live

Villano, T. (2005, October). Should social studies textbook become history? A look at alternative methods to activate schema in the intermediate classroom. Reading Teacher, 59 , 122–130. Retrieved from EBSCO Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18508922&site=ehost-live