《Helping,ESL,Students,Become,Better,Readers-,Schema,Theory,Applications,and,Limitations Applications.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Helping,ESL,Students,Become,Better,Readers-,Schema,Theory,Applications,and,Limitations Applications.docx（6页珍藏版）》请在得力文库 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。
1、Helping,ESL,Students,Become,Better,Readers:,Schema,Theory,Applications,and,Limitations ApplicationsNigel Stottnrstottteacher.email.ne.jp(Fukuoka, Japan)Schema theory describes the process by which readers combine their own background knowledge with the information in a text to comprehend that text.
2、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 learners schemata. This paper summarises some of the research into schema theory and
3、 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 learners vocabulary and of encouraging extensive reading.IntroductionSchema theory is based on the belief that every a
4、ct of comprehension involves ones 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 combining textual information with the information a reader brings to a text (Widdowson in
5、Grabe 1988:56). Readers mental stores are termed schemata (after Bartlett in Cook 1997:86) and are divided (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 contribut
6、ion 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 (
7、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
8、 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 of extensive reading.Schemata and the Reading ProcessIn the process of reading, comp
9、rehension 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 disconfir
10、med 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. (S
11、wales 1990:88)The reading process, therefore, involves identification of genre, formal structure and topic, all of which activate schemata and allow readers to comprehend the text (Swales 1990:89). In this, it is assumed that readers not only possess all the relevant schemata, but also that these sc
12、hemata actually are activated. Where this is not the case, then some disruption of comprehension 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 followi
13、ng section describes some of these differences in interpretation.Schemata and Differences in ComprehensionDifferences between writer intention and reader comprehension is most obvious where readers have had different life experiences to the writers model reader. Readers sometimes also feel that they
14、 comprehend 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 Its a muggers game in Manhattan (Greenall and Swan 1986:197-8) was given to advanced L2 readers (Japanese). Altho
15、ugh the text appeared humorous to the native-speaker teacher, it was found scary and shocking by the Japanese students.As Carrell and Eisterhold (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 specif
16、ic and is not part of a particular readers 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
17、the schemata of some non-native readers (such as 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
18、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 learners reading at the limits of their linguistic ab
19、ilities, 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 overcompensate for absent schemata by reading in a slow, text-bound manner; other students may overcompensate by wild guessing (Carrell 1988a:101). Both strategies inevitably result in comprehension 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 unf1234下一页
黑公网安备:91230400333293403D