Spotlight on Literacy
Schema: Begin at the Beginning

Toni Morrison considers the use of schema in reading and concludes the reader is an artist. In O: The Oprah Magazine, Morrison says, “The words on the page are only half the story. The rest is what you bring to the party.” (Morrison, 2006, p.174).

This statement certainly supports the Cornerstone Framework and the Interactive Model of Reading which forms the basis for the framework.  Few would argue with this premise or the scholarship of Toni Morrison, but the difficulties in planning and developing schema units of study that impact student achievement are numerous but not insurmountable.  This year Cornerstone Literacy and Leadership Fellows join together to focus efforts on closing the achievement gap. This article supports the premise that closing the achievement gap is dependent upon teachers who are knowledgeable of schema as a cueing system.  Schema is the ultimate content when coaching to close the achievement gap.

Schema: What is it?
Google schema and hundreds of hits pop up. The excerpt below, one of the reliable sources, defines schema:

“Schema theory, now widely accepted as playing a key role in reading comprehension, is based on the assumption that the reader's prior knowledge directly impacts new learning situations. While schema theory has existed in various forms since the 1930's, it has recently re-emerged and has been redefined as an important concept in reading instruction. Reading theorists view schema theory as a 'framework' that organizes knowledge in memory by putting information into the correct 'slots,' each of which contains related parts. When new information enters memory, it not only must be compatible with one of the slots, but it must actually be entered into the proper slot before comprehension can occur (Nist & Mealey, 1991). If we accept this notion, reading shifts from a text-based activity to an interactive process in which the reader constructs meaning by interacting with the text. According to reading specialist John McNeil (1992), schemata are the reader's 'concepts, beliefs, expectations, processes — virtually everything from past experiences that are used in making sense of reading. In reading, schemata are used to make sense of text; the printed word evokes the reader's experiences, as well as past and potential relationships' (p. 20).” (Ariesta, 2001, p.1)

Schema: Why is it the ultimate content?
A large proportion of learner difficulties can be traced to insufficient general knowledge or schema, especially in cross-cultural situations.  Readers may lag behind in meeting achievement goals because schema is culturally specific and achievement tests do not always reflect a reader's cultural background.  It is thought that readers' cultures affect everything from the way reading is viewed to the content and formal schemata held by students.  In Cornerstone schools, cultural diversity is cause for celebration.  Taking advantage of our diverse student populations begins during the first 20 days of school with the comprehension strategy of schema and the use of schema as a cueing system for a well planned literacy block.  Exemplary Cornerstone teachers tap into students’ background knowledge for a rich literacy program that is student driven.
   
In a report entitled: School-Wide Reading Improvement: What Does the Research Say? How Do We Make It Happen?, Barbara Taylor and colleagues conclude that successful schools put children and families first and rely on extensive small group instruction. This is a common sense connection to valuing what children bring through their background knowledge or schema.

“The practice of accomplished teachers within schools that are promoting high achievement among students for whom failure is a common experience is the strong relationship found between school effectiveness and teacher communication with parents (which, by the way, is even stronger when examined as a building level phenomenon). Finally, the interaction between strong building communication and the capacity to offer high levels of small group instruction is reassuring; undoubtedly, the one begets the other.” (Taylor, Pearson, Walpole, 1999)

Richard Allington (2002) found similarities in his search for exemplary reading teachers who impact student achievement.  His research points out how exemplary teachers know their students, their text levels, their favorite books, and what they can do.  Allington’s synthesis of the research on exemplary teachers found that talk among children and teachers includes discussion of ideas, concepts, hypotheses, strategies, and responses to literature.  In other words, teachers who are successful in increasing students’ reading achievement take time to get to know and understand their students including an indepth understanding of their schema.

Researchers Lisa Delpit and Gloria Ladson-Billings, both interested in exemplary teachers of African American students, weigh in on the importance of schema in developing high levels of literacy.  Lisa Delpit (2002) suggests there is a seminal need to listen to students, delve into their interests, and create curricula that convinces them of their origin in a brilliant historical culture.  In doing this, students feel a connection to teachers who care for and respect them.  Gloria Ladson-Billings (2002) in a similar vein supports the importance of having students move from what they know to what they need to know with a continual classroom focus on instruction.  She sees this as key to rigorous instruction that creates high levels of achievement. 

This research review scratches the surface of evidence that schema is the ultimate content for closing the achievement gap.  Schema is after all the closest element to the child. One cannot help but think of the excerpt from Lewis Carroll’s, Alice in Wonderland:

“'Begin at the beginning,' the King said, very gravely, 'and go on till you come to the end: then stop.'” (Carroll, 1946)

Schema is the beginning and the end in reading instruction that is based on the Interactive Model of Reading (Rummelhart, 2004).  In this model, the cueing system or access to print is dependent upon the reader and the text, neither taking precedence over the other.

Schema Theory: What is the history?
The origin of schema theory resides in the research of R. C. Anderson, an esteemed educational psychologist.  Anderson’s work evolved into a theory supporting schema as a construct of organized knowledge that includes an elaborate network of abstract mental structures.  These structures represent a person’s world understanding. In 1926, Piaget first used schema as a term. Schema was, therefore, not an entirely new idea when Anderson expanded the meaning to include:

• Schemata are always organized meaningfully, and are added to continually, and are changing moment by moment as new information is processed.
• Schema is embedded in other schemata and contains subschema.
• The mental representations used during perception and comprehension combine to form a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts.

The most recent research on schema rests on a base built upon the work of Richard Anderson and David Pearson (1984). These two researchers, Anderson and Pearson, helped broaden our understanding to build the set of instructional principles listed below.
Current instructional principles of schema theory include:

• Teach general knowledge and broad concepts.
• Build on the existing knowledge (schemata) and make connections between ideas.
• Prior knowledge is necessary for new knowledge to assimilate.
• Schemata change as new information is acquired.
• Schemata are organized in meaningful ways.

Schema is currently defined as an integrative means to bring together mind concepts into an orderly representation.  Prior knowledge is a tool against which readers measure the meaning they are composing.  An important tenet of schema is that it is used as a means to store new information into existing knowledge (Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy, 1992; Gordon & Pearson, 1983; Hansen, 1981).  

Teaching Schema as a Reading Comprehension Strategy
In the seminal text, Mosaic of Thought: The Power of Comprehension Strategy Instruction (1997), Keene and Zimmerman include a chapter on the strategy related to the use of schema or background knowledge. The chapter, aptly named Homes in the Mind, relates the concept of activation of prior knowledge before, during and after reading and storing new information with other related memories. At the conclusion of a 6-8 week study, children will be able to activate schema, to independently and purposefully recall information and experiences relevant to what they are reading in four different ways:

• To relate unfamiliar text to their prior world knowledge and/or personal experience-those connections generally take three forms: Text-to-self, Text-to-text, and Text-to-world.
• To use what is known about an author and his or her style to predict and better understand a text.
• To identify potentially difficult or unfamiliar text structures or formats
• To recognize when they have inadequate background information and how to build schema.

This chapter influences the schema unit of study included at the end of this article.

Schema: Coaching for Student Achievement
As coaches plan for a schema study and encourage teachers to “begin at the beginning” by tapping into students’ prior knowledge, Joellen Killion’s research proves helpful.  Killion suggests designing a chain of events before implementing staff development related to schema or any other content.  She maintains teachers should always have the big picture.  At the same time the big picture is developed, staff development participants and contributors agree on their role and involvement.  A timeline is made clear before the staff development proceeds.  When these elements are in place, everyone is able to work from explicit assumptions.  The diagram at the end of this article is a visual representation of Killion’s vision for research on staff development that impacts student achievement.  For a detailed plan regarding a schema study, see "Schema Unit of Study" at the end of this article.

Questions coaches should ask as the schema study is implemented:

• What achievement evidence is available from other sites implementing a schema study?
• Is the big picture evident?
• Are materials available to teachers for implementing the study?
• What assessment and rubrics will be used to measure student progress?
• Are teachers implementing the study and how will we know how we are doing?
• Are teachers receiving rigorous feedback and coaching?
• Is the leadership team involved at all levels of the staff development?

Schema Unit of Study

• Online Resources for Schema Study; Emphasizing Implementation and Benchmarking (PDF)
• A checklist for assessing the comprehension environment and instruction in the classroom:
  Tool for Monitoring Implementation (PDF)
• What Children Can Do In Metacognition: Implementation Tool for Clarity (PDF)
• So, You Want to Teach Strategies? (PDF)
• Going Deeper with Comprehension Strategies: Schema; Three Kinds of Knowledge for Depth of Implementation (PDF)
• Primary Reading Comprehension Strategies Rubric (K-1) For Measuring Implementation of Schema Instruction (PDF)
• Schema Timeline (PDF)

References
      
Allington, R. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective reading instruction from a decade of studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. [Retrieved online 09/03/07 @ http://teachersread.net/Papers.htm]

Anderson, R. C. & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 255-291). New York, NY: Longman.

Anderson, R. C., R. J. Spiro, and W. E. Montague (editors). 1984. Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ariesta, C. (2001). College active reading skills: Promoting academic success for students with learning disabilities: The Landmark College Guide. Ed. Strothman, S.W. [Retrieved online 09/03/07@ http://www.landmarkcollege.org/institute/assistive_technology/reading_overview.html].

Carroll, L. (1946). Alice’s adventures in Wonderland and through the looking glass. Penguin Publishers.

Delpit, L. (2002). No kinda sense. In L. Delpit & J. K. Dowdy (Eds.), The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom (pp.31-49. New York, NY: The New Press.

Gordon, C. J. & Pearson, P. D. (1983). The effects of instruction on metacomprehension and inferencing on children’s comprehension. (Tech. Rep. No.  227). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Center for the Study of Reading.

Hansen, J. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children’s reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 391-417.

Killion, J. (1999). Forge a link between adult and student learning. Results.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2002). I ain’t writin’: Permissions to fail and demands to succeed in urban classrooms. In L. Delpit & J. K. Dowdy (Eds.), The skin we  speak: Thoughts on language and culture and classroom (pp.107-120).  New York, NY: The New Press.

McNeil, J.D. (1992). Reading comprehension new directions for classroom practice (3rd. ed.) Los Angeles: U. of California

Nist, S.L. & Mealey, D.L. (1991). Teacher-directed comprehension strategies. In R. Flippo & D. Caverly (Eds.). Teaching reading and study strategies at the college level. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Morrison, T. (2006). The reader as artist. In O: The Oprah Magazine, July, 2006, pp. 174-175.

Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In Samuels, S. J., & Farstrup, A. E., What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Rumelhart, D.E. (2004). Toward an Interactive Model of Reading. In R.B. Ruddell, & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 1149-1179). Newark, DE: International Reading Association

Taylor, B., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K. & Walpole, S. (1999). Effective schools/Accomplished teachers. [Retrieved online 09/03/07 @ http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/1999-01/art-online-99-01.html].

Taylor, B. & Pearson, P. D. (2000). School-Wide Reading Improvement: What Does the Research Say? How Do We Make It Happen? [Retrieved online 09/03/07 @ http://www.ciera.org/library/presos/2000/].