Schema Theory Notes

Essential question: How does our mind organize data? Principles demonstrated: Mental representations guide behaviour Mental processes can be scientifically investigated Cognitive processes actively organize and manipulate the information that we receive Quick Definitions Schema: A cluster of inter-related concepts that tell us about how things function in the world. In other words, the representation in the mind of a set of perceptions, ideas, and/or actions, which go together. e.g. a schema about television would tell us about how they work and what sort of programs they are likely to display (Flanagan, 2003). Schema theory: cognitive theory about information processing Cognitive schema: networks of knowledge, beliefs and expectations about particular aspects of the world What is a schema? A schema is a cognitive framework or concept that helps organize and interpret information. Schemas can be useful because they allow us to take shortcuts in interpreting the vast amount of information that is available in our environment. However, these mental frameworks also cause us to exclude pertinent information to instead focus only on things that confirm our pre-existing beliefs and ideas. Schemas can contribute to stereotypes and make it difficult to retain new information that does not conform to our established ideas about the world. The History of Schemas It can be said that schema theory has evolved from two different directions: Piaget and his research on children (please read and investigate Piagets theories at: (http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/piaget.htm). Bartletts studies on our reconstructive memory. Theorist Jean Piaget introduced the term schema and its use was popularized through his work. According to his stage theory of cognitive development, children go through a series of stages of intellectual growth. In Piaget's theory, a schema is both the category of knowledge as well as the process of acquiring that knowledge. As experiences happen and new information is presented, new schemas are developed and old schemas are changed or modified. Example of a schema: A young child may first develop a schema for a horse. She knows that a horse is large, has hair, four legs and a tail. When the little girl encounters a cow for the first time, she might initially call it a horse. After all, it fits in with her schema for the characteristics of a horse; it is a large animal that has hair, four legs and a tail. Once she is told that this is a different animal called a cow, she will modify her existing

schema for a horse and create a new schema for a cow. Now, let's imagine that this very young girl encounters a miniature horse for the first time and mistakenly identifies it as a dog. Her parents explain to her that the animal is actually a very small type of horse, so the little girl must this time modify her existing schema for horses. She now realizes that while some horses are very large animals, others can be very small. Through her new experiences, her existing schemas are modified and new information is learned. Problems With Schemas While the use of schemas to learn in most situations occurs automatically or with little effort, sometimes an existing schema can actually hinder the learning of new information. Prejudice is one example of schema that prevents people from seeing the world as it really is and inhibits them from taking in new information. By holding certain beliefs about a particular group of people, this existing schema may cause people to interpret situations incorrectly. When an event happens that challenges these existing beliefs, people may come up with alternative explanations that uphold and support their existing schema instead of adapting or changing their belief

Evaluate schema theory with reference to research studies

Development Psychologist, Jean Piaget (1896-1980) invented the term 'schema'. Piaget was interested in how childrens thinking or 'cognition developed and proposed a theory to explain how a child's thinking becomes more complex over time. Piaget noted that all babies were born with similar biological 'equipment' or 'structures' e.g. the brain, the senses & reflexes. The infant is born with a set of reflexes (e.g. sucking and grasping) and innate schema (e.g. recognition of faces). Piaget called the psychological structures that contain this knowledge 'schemas'. An example of an innate schema would be a mental representation of a human faceFantz (1961) presented evidence that humans are born with an innate ability to recognize faces.

Development of Schemas
From birth onwards, the schemas of infants develop as a result of interactions with the environment. New experiences lead to new schemas being developed. e.g. Infants learn to separate faces of people they know (Hunt, 1993). Piaget believed that schemas become more complex through a process of: Assimilation: the process of fitting new information & experiences into existing schemas Accomodation: the process of changing the existing schemas when

new information cannot be assimilated e.g. a child may have a schema of a dog having 'four legs, fur & a wet nose'every new instance of a creature with the same characteristics is assimilated into this schema. However, when the child sees a cat, this cannot be assimilated by the existing schema, so instead of the child's schema must alter to accommodate new information and a new schema is formed. The driving force behind these changes or 'adaption' is the principle of 'equilibration'. The intellect strives to maintain 'equilibrium' or a 'sense of balance'. If an experience cannot be 'assimilated' into existing schemas then there is a state of imbalance. Cognitive development is a result of the adaptation between an individuals existing schemas and environmental demands for change, such as experiences that don't fit existing schemas.

Evaluation Points
Schema theory is very influential and it has inspired a lot of research (e.g. Bartlett). Though, there is flawed methodology in the cognitive tasks he gave children to perform to develop his theory of cognitive developmentthis meant that he underestimated the rate at which children develop. Piaget's research can also be criticized as lacking in ecological validity, as this is not a typical situation that would happen in real life. This theory could as well be seen as overly simplistic, the influence of culture and gender is largely ignored.

Specific Research Studies:

Bartlett (1932) Reconstructive Memory: Frederic Bartlett a British Psychologists was one of the first to use the concept of a schema in 1932. Aims: Investigate the way that memory stores meaningful information Procedure: Participants presented with a story The War of the Ghosts. They were asked to recall the story repeatedly at different time intervals: minutes, days, months and years. Findings: The recalled story became shorter, more coherent, more conventional, and more clichd. Conclusion: Memory is reconstructive, and people try to make memories fit in with whatever personal schema they have. Evaluation Points: Strength: One of the first experiments to study complex memories; provides evidence for reconstructive memory and stimulated much further research. Weakness 1: Results may be due to demand characteristics Weakness 2: Folk tale is written in an unusual style, and so is not representative of everyday memory tasks. Brewer and Treyen (1981) The office experiment

 Tested memory for objects in an office that 30 participants had waited in individually Found that the participants office schema did affect their recall. Expected objects were recalled well/invented (e.g. books, pens). Unexpected objects were often not remembered at all This is clearly an experiment and in an artificial setting, but the participants were not aware at the time of the procedure, that they were taking part in a study so there behaviour was quite natural. Fantz (1961) the face recognition in infants (innate schemas) Aim: To see whether face recognition was innate in infants Method/Procedure: Fantz set up a display board above the baby to which were attached two pictures. On one there was a bulls-eye and on the other was a sketch of the human face. Then, from behind the board, invisible to the baby, he peeked through a hole to watch what the baby looked at. Findings & conclusions: A two-month-old baby looked twice as much at the human face as it did at the bulls-eye. This is suggested that human babies have some powers of pattern and form selection. Evaluation Points: Ground breaking studyshowing the innate nature of some schemas. Makes evolutionary senseface recognition aids survival and is important for communication. Supported by further research: Hunt (1993) found that at three months we can tell the difference between the members of our family.

General Evaluation of Schema Theory

There is a lot of research to support the idea that schemas affect cognitive processes such as memory. This theory seems quite useful for understanding how people categorize information, interpret stories and make inferences. Schema theory has also contributed to our understanding how cognition develops in children (Piaget) and also how memories can become distorted. Furthermore, social psychologists often refer to 'social schemas when they are trying to explain stereotyping and prejudice.' Schema theory helps to understand cultural and gender differences, since different genders & cultures may have different schemas which influence the way they interpret the world. However, there are some methodological flaws with the research, for example, Bartletts choice of material meant that the stories he chose may not have been meaningful to other people, but he had no objective measure of 'meaningfulness'. However, his initial findings have been supported by later research by Brewer and Treyens (1981) and Brandford and Johnson (1973) It is an important to note that much of the research can be criticized for having low ecological validity. Cohen (1993) states that schema theory is rather vague and the theory fails to offer

detailed explanations of how the schemas are acquired in the first place. Cohen believes the theory is overly simplistic (reductionist) and does not account for complexity of human cognition. However, recent biological research by Caramazza (2009) found that from the visual cortex, information about living and non-living objects are shuttled to different parts of the brain as to trigger appropriate reactionseven in blind participantsso some schemas appear to be connected to localized areas of the brain.

References:
Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press. Summary review of research: https://www.msu.edu/~henrikse/cep909/warofghosts.htm Bartletts original paper pdf: http://iscte.pt/%7Efgvs/Bartlett,%20Experiments.pdf Mahon, Anzellotti, Schwarzbach, Zampini & Caramazza (2009) Category-Specific

organization in the human brain does not require visual experience: Neuron 63, 397405, August 13, 2009. pdf available:

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~caram/PDFs/2009_Mahon_Anzellotti_Caramazza_Neur on.pdf Fanz, R. L. (1961). Maturation of Pattern Vision in Infants During First 6 Months. Scientific American, 204: 66 Paper available pdf: http://pd.scisdragons.net/ibpsych/files/2011/11/Fantz-originof-form-perception.pdf Onarato and Turner, (2004): The fluid self selef schemas are malleable.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/107642458/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Piaget, J. (1926) The Child's Conception of the World. Towota, NJ. Littlefield Adams. Gureckis, T.M. & Goldstone, R. L.: (2010) Indiana University, Chapter Review on Schema: pdf: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CE4QFjAD&url=http% 3A%2F%2Fcognitrn.psych.indiana.edu%2Frgoldsto%2Fpdfs%2Fschemaforlanguage.pdf&ei=Euf6UMiy A8qb0QXIyoHoDA&usg=AFQjCNHHR-hFeIsoV_AOMZsmoPOX8eyBA&sig2=fpMfInkL6FC8LGJyz4J0zw&bvm=bv.41248874,d.d2k

Extension work:

Schema Theory and Comprehension in Reading

Schema theory is vital to developing comprehension in reading. When students access prior knowledge, their comprehension ability is so much greater than it would be without any prior information or motivation to read. By scaffolding learning and using what the students already know, educators are providing students with a gateway to understanding far more than they would be capable of without unlocking their mental filing cabinets.

Structure of the Schema Theory All schemas are rooted in additional schemata and contain what Anderson described as subschema. When schema is activated it involves the relationship of how the different knowledge parts stored connect to make meaning of text. These parts have been referred to as "nodes", "variables, or "slots" (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). When the schema is activated these parts are filled with some prior knowledge. This prior knowledge is made up of their own personal knowledge of the world. Personal knowledge is created by a readers culture. A hypothesis presented by Reynolds, Taylor, Steffensen, Shirley, and Anderson in 1982 stated that "Culture influences knowledge, beliefs, and values; and that knowledge, beliefs, and values influence comprehension processes" (page 354). Once one schema part is activated it is likely that these parts will remind the reader of more schema parts. There is a strong interconnection between each of the parts of the schema to represent the whole schema a reader activates when encountering text. The most important aspect of the schema theory as it relates to comprehension is "seeing the significance of the parts to the whole" (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). Schema Effects Comprehension In an experiment done by Bransford and Johnson in 1973 they found that schemata has strong effects on comprehension. Their study demonstrated an extreme case of inadequate comprehension due to a failure of a relevant schema to be activated). The participants tested in the study did much better on recall of the passages when their prior knowledge was activated. The participants that had little or no prior knowledge did poorly on the comprehension recall of the passage. This study helped to prove

that appropriate schema of a topic helps the reader make meaning of the text or vocabulary involved in a text. Additionally, Anderson, Spiro, and Anderson (1978) note that "the schemata a person already possesses are a principal determiner of what will be learned from a new text. This is logical in the case of students with different background knowledge. Decoding abilities are essential, but will not increase comprehension without a strong foundation for the new information to build upon. Modifying a Schema According to Anderson, schema is constantly modified. As individuals gain knowledge their mental filing cabinets begin to reorganize, routinely re-arranging, adapting, and restructuring concepts based on what is being learned and experienced. Not only is schemata modified by being continuously reorganized within the mind, but it also grows larger and becomes more specific and detailed from moment to moment as new information is received. When new information is presented to a reader that is reliable or credible to the reader they modify their existing schema. Most readers will check their existing schema of the content presented and check that the new information is consistent with what has already been stored in their schemata. The reader makes the decision to either add the information to the schema or reject the information as conflicting information with what the reader believes to be true (Anderson & Pearson 1984). Inferencing: A Key Process

Prior knowledge (organized into schema) has been proven to have a significant influence over comprehension. A students ability to make sensible inferences tells us that the student has made connections with the text and comprehends what is being read. It has been shown that while high achieving readers tap prior knowledge to make inferences, poor readers often have trouble applying prior knowledge to form inferences (Carr & Thompson, 1996) and comprehend text. Anderson and his colleagues believe that inferences can be made at two different times during the reading process. They can be made when the reader is actually decoding or when they are searching their memory for more information. Anderson identified four kinds of inferences that are made during the reading comprehension process. The first types of inferences are the kind that the reader narrows the schema down to decide which schema would be appropriate for the text at hand. The second kind of inference Anderson calls the process of instantiating slots within a particular schema. The reader is filling a slot of missing information with an appropriate schema. The reader can also fill the slot by assigning default values.

The fourth type of inference involves the reader drawing their own logical conclusion based on the knowledge provided. This inference is used when there is a lack of knowledge written in the text. Anderson et al 1977 described the role of inferencing in the schema-theory stating, First, schema selection is often based upon inference, then the schema one selects influences the amount and nature of recall, and once a schema has been selected, even by inference, it will drive other inferences, particularly slot-filling inferences(p.270). Surprisingly, age can play an active role in ones ability to make sensible inferences. Researchers have argued over why age is related to the inference process and some believe as humans get older they have more schemas to choose from to draw more inferences (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). The Role Attention Plays One theory Anderson used in 1984 to describe the relationship between schema and attention plays a significant role in comprehension of text. Anderson suggests that a reader is more likely to remember and learn something from the text if they think it is important. "The readers selectively attend to important elements in the text" (p.272). This theory involved three steps to which the new schema presented is processed and stored. The first step is the reader judging the importance of the text. The reader pays extra attention to the schema that exceeds the level of importance. These schemas that have the extra attention in turn are learned better and remembered better. There have been empirical studies that have tested this selective-attention model. In 1979 Rothkopf and Billington completed three experiments involving reading with selective-attention on high-school students. The students were given learning objectives to memorize and study before they were given a reading passage. The data concluded the students who were given the learning objectives prior to the reading spent more time on the sentences that were relevant to those learning objectives. They also spent less time on sentences that did not involve one of the learning objectives compared to students who did not have any objectives before the reading. The researchers also followed the eye-patterns of the readers and reported these patterns to be consistent with the reading-time spent on certain sentences. The students who were given the learning objectives prior to the passage learned and remembered more information relevant to those objectives then the rest of the passage.

Schema Influences Memory Since schemata are essentially the organization of ones knowledge, memory plays a vital role in the schema theory. Humans learn many concepts each day, some which are revisited regularly and some of which are stored in the back of the mind for later use. Since all previous knowledge is not used on a day to day basis some of the information that is learned is also forgotten. For this purpose, think of forgotten information as memory loss (the information still exists, but you have to find it). Though adequate prior knowledge may exist, the memory may need to stir in order for it to resurface. Studies have shown that subjects who are prompted by examiners to activate relevant schemata often perform higher on comprehension activities than subjects who are required to activate their own relevant schemata (Carr & Thompson, 1996). An educator for example, must be aware of this and be sensitive to the likely hood that even if a child has adequate prior knowledge in a subject area they may need assistance recalling information that they already know in order to apply it to new information as it is learned. Anderson attempted to answer the question of how a person's schema influences memory. He came up with three different possible answers. The first one he labelled the retrieval-plan hypothesis which involves a "topdown" search of schema in the memory. The reader is activating general schema related to the information in the text and connecting the schema to the concepts presented. The second hypothesis Anderson described is the output-editing hypothesis. This involves the reader selecting or rejecting information presented based on their own schema already created in their memory. The third hypothesis Anderson created was the reconstruction hypothesis. "According to this hypothesis, the person generates inferences about what must have been in the passage based on his schema and aspects of the passage that can be recalled" (p.281). Conclusion In comprehending text, much more goes on in the brain than simple decoding. The reader must visit several previous learning experiences to fully comprehend what they are reading, and this builds a strong foundation for true comprehension to occur. If students are not motivated to read or do not have enough background knowledge, they will likely have poor retelling abilities. Their mental filing system must be unlocked, organized, and re-arranged to bring forth the knowledge they will need to succeed. When the reader has the information they need before opening the book and looking at the text, they will be far more successful.

References Anderson, R., Pearson, P. (1984. A Schema-Theoretic View of Basic Processes in Reading Comprehension. Technical Report No. 306. Anderson, R., Spiro, R., Anderson, M. Schemata as Scaffolding for the Representation of Information in Connected Discourse. American Educational Research Journal. (15) 3. Carr, S. & Thompson, B. (1996). The Effects of Prior Knowledge and Schema Activation Strategies on the Inferential Reading Comprehension of Children With and Without Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. Vol. 19. Freebody, P., Anderson,R. (1983). Effects of Vocabulary Difficulty, Text Cohesion, and Schema Availability on Reading Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly. (28)3. Reynolds, R., Taylor, M., Steffensen, M., Shirey, L., Anderson,R. (1982). Cultural Schemata and Reading Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly. (27)3.

External Links Schema Theory for Dummies http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/schema.htm This site gives a brief history of the development of schema theory, along with some real-world examples of how schema theory influences brain activity. The text is easy to understand and discusses how researchers came to understand this theory. The Organization of Knowledge http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow/StrategicReader/StratKwlge.html This link connects to a well-developed site that is part of a working paper. It includes research by Anderson and Pearson, as well as an example of a restaurant schema. Schema Theory-based Pre-reading Tasks http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/ajideh/article.pdf This link connects to an article on the using schema theory-based pre-reading tasks to motivate learners and bring forth prior knowledge for ESL students. A Review of Theorists http://www.answers.com/topic/learning-theory-schematheory Several theorists have contributed over time to the development of schema theory. This site gives a brief history of the impacts each researcher contributed to its development.