Content and Formal Schema and Background Knowledge

            There are two different types of schema, or background knowledge, that the readers bring on a text. The first is content schema, which is related with the content area and cultural knowledge. The other is formal schema which deals with syntax, cohesive relations, and rhetorical organization of different text types.

1.      Content Schema

Some experts have argued whether the existence of background knowledge affects reading comprehension or hinders comprehension. Reynolds et al. proved that cultural schema as well as personal knowledge influence reading comprehension. Further, prior knowledge affects memory performance that it supports short-term memory for reading ability. However, topic-related attitudes influence the long-term memory of a text, but play a minor role to change immediate recall of a text. In addition, Gaskin (1996) noted that a reader’s attitudes and affiliations affect the interpretation of the text.   

The other experts, such as Read and Rosson opposed that there is a tendency for readers to fit the new information to their own conceptions of what is correct. Hudson (2011) mentions that background knowledge also affect the extent to which new information that may be at odds with existing knowledge is learned from text. Lipson (1982) proved through his study that the reader may build inappropriate meanings based on inappropriate and incorrect inferences, making it more advantageous to acquire completely new information rather than to correct old information that is inaccurate.

Further discussion will about the influence that prior knowledge has on strategies both in familiar and unfamiliar topics (Afflerbach, 1990). This brings to an understanding that low-knowledge and high-knowledge utilize different methods in identifying the main idea of a passage. Afflerbach proposes draft-and-revision and listening strategy to address unfamiliar content text. Meanwhile, readers use automatic construction and initial hypothesis testing strategy with familiar content text. In addition, topic/comment strategy is used either in unfamiliar or familiar content text.

Cultural knowledge as part of background knowledge shows significantly affects the comprehension. This can be viewed from various findings, such as Steffensen, Joag-Dev, Anderson and others. Hudson (ibid) sums it up that background knowledge facilitate the reading process, to the extent that speed of processing is a reflection of reading ease.

Further study is about the relationship between background knowledge and text complexity. Johnson (1981) concluded that content familiarity can overcome linguistic complexity. In contrast, Carrell (1983) argued that non-native readers failed to use background information since they are linguistically bound. Later, Malik (1990) concludes that the use of schemata most likely played a role in the superior comprehension of the familiar topic and thus enables a reader to distinguish important information from less important information. According to Carrel (1987), content of the text was a stronger predictor of performance than was the familiar or unfamiliar organization of the text. In other words, topic familiarity is of more importance than familiarity with text structure.   

2. Formal Schema

Formal schema refers to reader’s knowledge towards the language, conventions, and rhetorical structures of different types of text. Formal schema involves orthography, syntax, cohesion, and text structure.

Hudson (ibid, 166) mentions that orthographic features are similar to those of the second language will affect the ease with which they make the transition into fluent second language reading. Further, Chatiri argues that word recognition differs between languages depending upon the writing system and the ability to deal with this writing system depends upon reading proficiency in each of the language. Akamatsu adds that this type of word recognition does not affect comprehension.

Text simplification, which refers to syntactic control, may essential to comprehension. Barry and Lazarte (1995) found that reader’s familiarity with content could be cancelled out by text containing complex embedded clauses. Yano, Long, and Ross (1994) further supported that both simplified and elaborated text versions increased comprehension of texts over the unmodified ones. However, Blau (1982) as well as Leow (1993) revealed that there were no significant evidences to say that syntactic adaptation make the text more comprehensible.

Cohesion refers to means available in the surface forms of the text to signal relationships that exist between sentences or clausal units in the text. Halliday and Hasan (1976) mention five types of cohesive relationships; 1) referential (pronoun), 2) substitution of one word with another, 3) ellipsis, 4) conjunction, and 5) lexical cohesion. Kinstch et.al (1975) found that reference assists comprehension and helps predict reading time. Graesser (1978) adds that readers remember highly cohesive text better than less cohesive text.

An investigation on the relationship between reader’s ability in the language and comprehension was conducted by Horiba (1996). He found that language competence affects comprehension and recall, and only those learners with high language proficiency were sensitive to the degree of causal coherence. Thus, to sum it up, a second reader’s formal knowledge of how cohesive markers operate will affect the ease with which the text is processed and thus affects level of text comprehension.

Another important part in cohesion is text structure which refers to how the ideas in a text are structured to convey meaning. There are two types text structures to be discussed, namely narrative and expository text.

A.    Narrative

The conceptual basis of narrative lies in sequences of experiences and events. Rumelhart (1975) and others found that narratives have a hierarchical structure that can be used by readers to aid comprehension. A reader familiar with the narrative schema will look for these components in processing the text and they will guide the reader. This hierarchical structure is best known as ‘story grammar’. Hudson (ibid, 182) ends the discussion by stating that knowledge of the prototypic narrative structure assists readers in comprehending and remembering elements of the story. In contrast, Graesser et al. mentioned that story grammars apply only to straightforward simple and relatively short stories since it do not explain the background knowledge needed to comprehend a story. Further, Wilkinson, Elkins, and Bain (1995) said that lower-ability readers reduced sensitivity to story structure and recalled less information from story grammar categories.

In second language reading, Carrell (1984) concluded that formal story schema tended to operate during the retrieval of the story information, and readers rely on text-structure strategies for comprehension. This also include discussion about language level that interaction between language level and story organization may affect comprehension.

B.     Expository

The connection in expository text structure is logical relations. Microprocesses and macroprocesses involve in text comprehension that it will differentiate manner in which the reader processes. Macroprocesses are related to global comprehension of text and microprocesses have to do with close comprehension of the text. Kintsch and Yarbrough (1982) proved that text structure is important for macroprocesses of global comprehension, but it may be less important for microprocessing of text. In second language reading, Benderto (1986) found that readers who failed to attend to top level text structure in their first language also failed in their second language, although they were advanced second language users.

3.      Instruction in text Structure

Several studies at different levels of instruction have indicated that first language instruction in text structure can be effective in teaching discourse organization. Singer and Donlan (1982) proved that group receiving instruction on structure schema and self-generated questioning showed a significant advantage over traditionally instructed group. Taylor and Beach (1984) further mentioned that developing hierarchical summaries may be more helpful in preparation for reading an unfamiliar passage. Hudson (ibid, 196) adds that teaching students to be aware that a text does have a reasonably predictable structure and to use it has been demonstrated to have a positive effect on comprehension. This also supported by Carrell (1985).