Cited by 143Second Language Acquisition and LearningReading and Literacy DevelopmentEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL reading

Carrell, Patricia L.·1988·Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading

Abstract

Recent developments in the theory of knowledge representation, going under the general rubric of schema theory (Bartlett 1932; Anderson 1977; Adams and Collins 1979; Rumelhart and Ortony 1977; Rumelhart 1980), have had a pervasive influence on current thinking about text comprehension. Through an emphasis on the role of preexisting knowledge structures in providing information left implicit in text, schema-theoretic approaches have made possible the fairly detailed modeling of many of the active, constructive processes necessary to comprehension (e.g., Schank and Abelson 1977). Within the schematheoretic framework, text comprehension, or more specifically for our purposes, reading comprehension, is characterized as involving an interaction of text-based processes and knowledge-based processes, the latter related to the reader's existing background or schemata (Adams and Collins 1979; Anderson 1977; Rumelhart 1977, 1980; Rumelhart and Ortony 1977; Carrell and Eisterhold 1983, reprinted as Chapter 5 in this volume; and Anderson and Pearson 1984, reprinted as Chapter 3 in this volume). Schema-theory research has shown that the most efficient processing of text is interactive – a combination of top-down and bottom-up processing modes (Rumelhart 1977, 1980). Top-down processing is the making of predictions about the text based on prior experience or background knowledge, and then checking the text for confirmation or refutation of those predictions. Bottom-up processing is decodin…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781139524513.012

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 143

Metadata

Authors
Carrell, P. L.
Affiliations
Southern Illinois University Carbondale (US)
Corresponding author
Carrell, Patricia L.
Venue
Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading
Published
1988-02-26
Pages
101-113
OpenAlex
W1649653794
Cited by
143
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.47
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
English as a second language, reading comprehension, schema theory, top-down processing, bottom-up processing, prior knowledge, text comprehension, second language reading

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review