Schema Theory: Schema Types

Brian C. Turton, Lecturer, Tungnan University

Abstract

Schema theory is concerned with the role of prior knowledge and background
information in language comprehension. Schemata (plural of Schema) are the
structures by which people perceive, remember, and respond to information. When
reading or listening, schema help people to pay attention to specific aspects of
incoming material while keeping track of what has gone on previously. In this paper,
the three key and important schema types are considered and explained; these are
content schema, formal schema, and linguistic schema.

Keywords: schema theory, schema types

Introduction

There are three basic types of schema: content, formal, and linguistic. Content
schema deals with cultural knowledge, topic familiarity, and prior experience with a
subject. It functions primarily through the top-down processing mode, being
knowledge-based and concept-driven.
Formal schema (some call this textual schema) deals with background
knowledge of discourse forms (rhetorical forms such as myths, narratives, poetry,
descriptive accounts, expository writing, research reports, etc.). It involves both types
of processing modes: top-down knowledge of rhetorical concepts and formats, and
bottom-up involvement with text-based detailed organization.
Linguistic schema deals with the skills and knowledge needed for accurate
decoding of the linguistic units of a text: grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and its
discourse types. It uses bottom-up processing because it is tied to the details of the text.
There is some overlap between formal schema and linguistic schema, since discourse
types are subsumed under both. Discourse types present rhetorical formats (top-down
processing), and are also integral to how a text is read (bottom-up processing).

Review of Research
Most research on schema theory has been done with content and formal

1
 schemata. Both content and formal schemata facilitate the comprehension of
language and linguistic schemata, but in differing ways. Carrell (1987) did a study
with high-intermediate ESL students, using culturally familiar and unfamiliar contents
and also rhetorically organized, familiar text formats and rhetorically unfamiliar,
altered text formats. Results showed that "[w]hen both form and content are familiar,
the reading is relatively easy; when both form and content are unfamiliar, the reading
is relatively difficult. When either form or content is unfamiliar, unfamiliar content
poses more difficulties for the reader than unfamiliar form” (Carrell, 1987, p.476). Yet
formal schema was found to be more important than content schema in top-down
processing and in the comprehension of events and their temporal relationships.
Content schema is existing knowledge of objects and events, dealing with
both area-specific information (such as the game of baseball or the 1996 U.S.
presidential election) as well as conventional universal knowledge (such as weddings,
funerals, or the U.S. political system).
Event schema is one type of area-specific content schema that is quite
distinctive. What is most important about event schemata is that they are temporally
structured, and involved with the anticipated time ordering of events (Clark, 1990).
Event schemata are concerned with stereotypical episodes or circumstances, such as
visiting a dental office or riding public transit.
Formal schema comprises background knowledge as it relates to the
rhetorical organizational framework of texts. Meyer and Freedle (1984) divide
discourse into five basic organizational types; they claim that these types can and do
usually overlap, so that one discourse form may contain several organizational types.
The five types are as follows: collection, description, causation, problem/solution, and
comparison (the last three types have more tightly organized structures than the first
two). Meyer and Freedle also classify description as a special type under collection.
Meyer and Freedle conducted two different studies involving graduate
students who were capable of identifying and using these discourse types. They
employed a collection-of-descriptions format, thus collapsing the five basic types to
four in their study. Using the same topic (the loss of body water), Meyer and Freedle
produced four different expository texts, one for each discourse type. Their purpose
was to determine whether the different ways in which discourse is organized can
influence memory.
Figure 1, on the following page, shows the differences among these
organizational types as Meyer and Freedle categorized them (diagram taken from
Meyer and Freedle, 1984, p.130). "A" refers to the identical information in the first
paragraph of each passage, "B" to the different information in each passage, and
"C" to the identical information in the last paragraph of each passage. For the

2
collection of descriptions type there are no interdependent relationships between
"A" and "B", "B" and "C", or "A" and "C", while there are specific interrelationships
among "A", "B", and "C" for the other three types. It can also be seen for these three
types that "B" and "C” are linked together such that "C" explains "B".

3
 Collection of Descriptions

One two three

A B C

Causation

一一一一一一 

antecedent consequent
A B

explanation
C

Problem/Solution

一一一一一一
answers matching needs

problem solution
A B
explanation

Comparison

一一一一一一
comparative

opposing view favored view

A B
Explanation

4
 C

Figure 1. Discourse Types and Their Organizational Formats

Study 1 used all four discourse types, while Study 2 compared only
two types: collection of descriptions and comparison. Meyer and Freedle drew
the following conclusions:
1) For both studies, the differences in discourse type did affect learning and
memory with collection of descriptions being less effective than the other types.
2) In Study 1, recall from the problem/solution passage was poorer than
expected, suggesting to the authors that either the learners rejected the discourse
strategy and used their own schema to process the passage (such a shift from one
schema to another would use up more processing capacity and lower recall); or the
passage itself was poorly constructed resulting in learner confusion.
3) In Study 2, recall and learning were more effective using the comparison
type as opposed to the collection of descriptions type. The authors "hypothesize that
the structures of comparison, causation, and possibly problem/solution provide a
more effective mnemonic" (Meyer and Freedle, 1984, p.141).
Their call for further research on discourse types was answered by other
researchers. Several research studies demonstrated that the rhetorical organization of
a text, whether it is a narrative or expository text, interacts with a reader's formal
schemata in ways which influence comprehension (Carrell, 1984). Furthermore,
similar results have been obtained for both LI and L2 subjects (although many more
studies have been conducted on L1 English subjects than on L2 subjects).
Reves conducted a research study on all three schematic types and how they
interact with each other (Reves, 1993). The purpose of the study was to determine
how the three schema types interact to produce textual comprehension, and how
relatively important each one was in the comprehension process. Reves provided
texts which used three separate types of rhetorical organization. She named her
discourse types descriptive, analytical, and argumentative; but she did not relate them
to Meyer and Freedle's discourse types, so that the similarities between the two

5
naming systems are unclear. The study relied on foreign language readers' post-test
interviews and responses; however, the texts read and the statistics of the study are
not given. Reves presents the results as follows:
1) Content and linguistic schemata are more decisive for global text
comprehension than formal schemata which seemed to be of a minor
importance.
2) Different formal schemata produce different interactions among the three
types, so that the relative importance of the three schemata for reading
comprehension varies with the different rhetorical formats. Readers who possessed
adequate and pertinent linguistic and content schemata performed better on all three
discourse types. However, formal schemata aided comprehension only when the
format was a tightly and logically organized, argumentative one.
3) Readers who used all three schemata were the better readers. Reves
concludes that "the more the schemata were activated in the course of reading, the
easier the reading task proved to be" (Reves, 1993, p.55).

Conclusion
From the above research studies, it can be ascertained that schema types are
useful for students. They are useful in helping learners to form coherent frameworks to
organize information, especially when processing written information, i.e. in reading.
Thus, when learning a second or foreign language, the learner can take advantage and
make use of existing schemata to take “shortcuts” in interpreting the enormous
amount of information naturally existing in his/her surroundings to more quickly and
efficiently learn the target language.

6
 References

Carrell, P. L. (I984). Facilitating reading comprehension by teaching text structure.

TESOL Quarterly, 19 (4), 727-752.
Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly,
21(3), 461-481.
Clark, S. R. (1990). Schema Theory and Reading Comprehension. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 325 802)
Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. 0. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American
Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121-143.
Reves, T. (1993, May). What makes a good foreign language reader? English
Teachers’Journal (Israel), 46, 51-58.