Psycholinguistic and schema approaches to reading and ESL learning and teaching

【Abstract】Many researchers and educators intend to develop a general understanding of reading comprehension process by means of reasonable framework. In fact, they have come out different models which have had a significant effect not only on reading but also on other aspects of second language learning and teaching. Two important models will be discussed in this essay, psycholinguistic and schema approaches. First, historical antecedents of these two approaches will be traced back. Then, the writer will outline the basic elements of the two approaches and demonstrate the development of the psycholinguistic and schema approaches to reading and second language learning. Next, the writer will point out their application to second language learning and teaching.

【Key words】Psycholinguistic Schema Approach ESL learning and teaching

【中图分类号】G642【文献标识码】A【文章编号】1006－9682（2010）11－0043－02

Before 1960s, early work in second language reading, especially reading in English as a second language, viewed reading as a rather passive, bottom－up process. With the bottom－up approach, reading is assumed as a process of decoding symbols, working from smaller units（individual letters, words）to larger ones（clauses and sentences, whole text）（Fries & Lado, 1964, cited in Carrell, 1988, p2）. Bottom-up models suggest that the reader uses skills and strategies to decode written forms to understand the meaning of the text with little interference from the reader’s own background knowledge. Although there was recognition of the importance of background knowledge, and culture－specific knowledge,［12］ bottom－up model is still the dominant approach to second language reading.［1］

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the psycholinguistic model of reading began to have an impact on views of second language reading. Perhaps the greatest contributor of psycholinguistic approach to reading is Goodman. Goodman［6］pointed out that to a great extent research on reading and teaching reading in the past several decades had focused either on preoccupation with the letters－sound relationships, or words and skills of recognizing and naming them. He suggested that although the research on reading can contribute a lot to the understanding of one phase or aspect, in order to have successful or complete understanding of reading as a whole process, research need to be related to the psycholinguistic process. His specific model of reading－the Psycholinguistic Guessing Game Model of Reading［5］is well known among applied linguists. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Goodman Model of Reading was presented as a representative psycholinguistic model, because it has grown from and has been supported by extensive research. The characteristic of this model is the reader using textual cues, such as graphophonic, syntactic, and semantic systems to predict meaning and confirm those predictions primarily from his or her own experiences and background knowledge of the language. The real end of reading is the reader using graphic cues without translating them into phonemic cues for decoding the meaning rather than using ‘cue systems’ of the language, such as letter－sound relationship, the spelling pattern-phonemic pattern relationships, and word shape－word name relationship for recoding.［6］

Goodman and his colleagues contribute a lot to psycholinguistic theory. With cognitive psychology dominates so much thinking about reading, it is not uncommon to hear or read about the psycholinguistic approach to reading. The psycholinguistic theory assumes that reading is primarily concept－driven. Readers sample the information from the text to confirm their predictions. They bring bear their knowledge, their past experiences on the processing of reading in order to comprehend the written language. In this point of view some reading experts characterized the ‘Psycholinguistic Guessing Game’ as a top－down approach.［13］

1．The origin and development of schema approach

The literacy term ‘schema’（pl. schemata）［9］was employed by many reading experts. According to Swales,［14］the notion of schema was introduced by Barlett in 1932 to explore how the readers rearrange the information or knowledge in their memories to fit in with their expectations（Barlett, 1932 cited in Swals, 1990）. Schemata which we also call background knowledge or prior knowledge defined by Nunan,（1989, p33）are “the mental structures which store our knowledge”. There are two types of schemata. One is formal schemata（background knowledge of the formal, rhetorical organizational structures of different types of texts）, and the other is content schemata（background knowledge of the content area or a text）.［14］In other words, formal schemata are background knowledge about, and expectations of, differences among written structures, such as differences in genre （recipes, advertisement, newspaper articles etc）differences in types （anecdote, description recount etc）. Knowledge of prior texts may lead to sufficient recognition of rhetorical structure to invoke formal schemata. As for content schemata, previous experiences and assimilated verbal experiences and encounters contribute a lot to it.

Although the term schemata emerged as long ago as 1932, only since the late 1970s, has the schema theory began to develop and to be applied to processes like reading.［11］To define in a general way, schemata theory is the theory of comprehension based on schemata. According to the theory, reading is an interactive process between what a reader already knows about the given topic and the text.［10］It is not simply a matter of using linguistic and grammatical knowledge to decode meaning of the text. Efficient comprehension requires the reader to use not only linguistic knowledge but also background knowledge to comprehend the text. The background knowledge is particularly significant for the reader. A good reader is able to relate the text to one’s own knowledge and experiences. The more schemata the reader develops the better he or she can understand. If the reader knows the topic of the passage and has relevant knowledge about that topic, the passage can be successfully comprehended.［2］

Since the linguistic knowledge is as important as background knowledge, Schema theory requires both top－down and bottom－up processes functioning interactively. It highlights the number of processes of reading and strikes a better balance among them, especially between top－down and bottom－up processes. It assumes that comprehension depends on an interaction between the structure and content of the text and what the individual brings to the text. The individual can only arrive at this anticipated meaning through the interaction of the material and the individual’s previously acquired repertoire of background experience. This kind of model as later mentioned by many researchers and educators is called interactive－model.［4］［7］It is not a model which replaces either top－down or bottom－up but requires these two processes interact with each other. Information from both the text and the readers’ background knowledge contributes a lot to comprehension.

2．Applications to second language learning and teaching

The general views of the origin and development of psycholinguistic and schema models were discussed in the above parts, mostly focus on reading. In fact, these two approaches have had a profound impact on other aspects of second language learning and teaching, such as on writing and listening. According to Cook,［2］the contribution of background information to leaning is much wider than the area of reading. As for listening, and writing, many textbooks and teachers attempt to activate students’ schemata by asking some warm－up questions or by brainstorming ideas about the topic. Other aspects that attract much attention of many educators are cultural schemata and its application in writing. Johns［9］viewed the theory of schemata as culturally specific. Cultural factors can shape learners’ schema knowledge. Learners from different cultures may have different schema knowledge that may have significant influence on how they write, and their writing performance. This is especially the case in TESOL where students are from different cultures. Cultural values are presented and carried through language or text.［8］Different cultures have different values and expectations of what a good writing is. Thus, Hyland（2003）suggests that when teaching and assessing writing in TESOL, teachers should bear cultural differences in mind and expose students to different schemata.

3．Conclusion

In conclusion, this article discusses the emergence and development of the psycholinguistic and schema approach to reading and second language learning and teaching. By discussing their origin and development, the writer highlights the effect of psycholinguistic and schema theories on reading and second language teaching. Application these two theories to TESOL cannot only benefit the students but also the teachers as for learning and teaching grammatical knowledge and contextualized vocabulary. However, despite these strengths, some problems need to be considered, too, such as the reading proficiency of the learners and some practical problems for building these two models.

References

1 Carrell, P. L.（1988）. Interactive text processing: implications for ESL/ second language reading classrooms. In P. L. Carrell, J. D. Devine & D. E. Eskey（Eds.）, Interactive approaches to second language reading（pp.239-259）. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

2 Cook, V.（1991）. Second language learning and language teaching. London: Edward Arnold

3 Cohen, A., Glasman, H., Cohen, P.R., Ferrara, J. & Fine, J. （1988）. Reading English for special purpose: discourse analysis and the use of student informants in ESL reading. In P. L. Carrell, J. D. Devine & D. E. Eskey（Eds.）, Interactive approaches to second language reading（pp.152～167）. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4 Eskey, D. E. & Grabe, W.（1988）. Interactive models for second language reading: perspectives on instruction in ESL reading. In P. L. Carrell, J. D. Devine & D. E. Eskey（Eds.）, Interactive approaches to second language reading（pp.223～238）. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5 Goodman, K. S.（1967）. Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the reading Specialist, 6, 126～135

6 Goodman, K. S.（1968）. The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process. In K. S. Goodman（Eds.）, The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process（pp15～26）. Michigan: Wayne State University Press

7 Grabe, W. & Stoller, F.L.（2002）. Teaching and researching reading. England: Longman

8 Hyland, K.（2003）. Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

9 Johns, A. M.（1997）. Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

10 Nunan, D.（1989）. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

11 Pearson, P. D. R. & Anderson, R.C（1988）A schema-theoretical view of basic process in reading comprehension. In P. L. Carrell, J. D. Devine & D. E. Eskey（Eds.）, Interactive approaches to second language reading（pp.37～55）. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

12 Rivers, W.（1968）. Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

13 Stanovich, K. E.（1980）. Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16（1）: 32～71

14 Swales, J. M.（1990）. Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press