The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL 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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“It has been argued, however, that the cognitive load can be lessened by activation of the background knowledge that readers bring to the text (Carrell, 1988;Ellis, 2001;Nassaji, 2002;Pulido, 2004).”
From The effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension (2009) · cites this paper as Carrell, 1988
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension
Erten, İ. H., & Razı, S. (2009) · Reading in a Foreign Language · doi:10.64152/10125/66632 · Cited by 93
Metadata
- Authors
- Carrell, P. L.
- Affiliations
- Southern Illinois University Carbondale (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carrell, Patricia L.
- Venue
- Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- 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