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 Piaget’s theories at:
(Unable to translate URL content.).
• Bartlett’s 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.
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 a 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

Evaluates schema theory with reference to research studies

Development Psychologist, Jean Piaget (1896-1980)

invented the term 'schema'. Piaget was interested in
how children’s 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 face—Fantz (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
Accommodation: 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 individual’s 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 development—this 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 Bartletta, a British psychologist, 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 clichéd.
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: The folk tale is written in an unusual style, and is not representative of
everyday memory tasks.

Brewer and Treyen (1981) – The office experiment

 Tested memory for objects in an office with 30 participants
had waited 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
behavior 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:
• Groundbreaking study—showing the innate nature of some schemas.
• Makes evolutionary sense—face 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 of 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,
Bartlett's 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 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
the cortex, information about living and non-living objects are shuttled to different parts
of the brain to trigger appropriate reactions—even in blind participants—so some
Schemas appear to be connected to localized areas of the brain.

References:

Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology

Cambridge University Press. Summary review of research:
Unable to access the content at the provided URL.
Bartlett’s original paper pdf:The URL provided does not contain any text to translate.

Mahon, Anzellotti, Schwarzbach, Zampini & Caramazza (2009) CategorySpecific

organization in the human brain does not require visual experience: Neuron63,397–405,
August 13, 2009. pdf available:
URL provided does not contain translatable text.
[Link]

Maturation of Pattern Vision in Infants During First 6 Months

Scientific American, 204: 66
Paper available pdf:Invalid URL format. No translatable text provided.

Onarato and Turner, (2004): The fluid self – self schemas are malleable.
The provided text is a URL and does not contain translatable content.

The Child's Conception of the World

Gureckis, T.M. & Goldstone, R. L.: (2010) Indiana University, Chapter Review on
Schema: pdf:
The provided text is not translatable content.
3A//[Link]/rgoldsto/pdfs/[Link]&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
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 reader’s culture. A hypothesis presented by Reynolds.
Taylor, Steffensen, Shirley, and Anderson stated in 1982 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 conducted 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.
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 student’s 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) e compreender o texto. Anderson e seus colegas acreditam
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.
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 one’s ability to make sensible inferences.
Researchers have argued over why age is related to the inference process and some
I believe that as humans get older, they have more schemas to choose from to draw from.
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
The 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
Having extra attention in turn leads to better learning and better retention.

There have been empirical studies that have tested this selective-attention model.
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.
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
Those 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 one’s knowledge, memory plays a
vital role in the schema theory. Humans learn many concepts each day, some of 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 likelihood 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 "top-
down" 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 happened.
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.
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
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 Invalid input. The provided text is a URL and cannot be translated.
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.
easy to understand and discusses how researchers came to understand this theory.

The Organization of Knowledge

The provided text is a URL and does not contain translatable content.
This link connects to a well-developed site that is part of a working paper.
includes research by Anderson and Pearson, as well as an example of a restaurant
schema.

Schema Theory-based Pre-reading Tasks

Unable to access external content.
This link connects to an article on using schema theory-based pre-reading
tasks to motivate learners and bring forth prior knowledge for ESL students.

A Review of TheoristsThe provided text is a URL and cannot be translated.

theory
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 it.
development.