Content and Formal Schemata in ESL Reading
Abstract
This article reports the results of an experiment investigating the simultaneous effects on ESL reading comprehension of both culture-specific content schemata and formal schemata, as well as any potential interaction between them. In the study, high-intermediate ESL students read, recalled, and answered questions about each of two texts. For each of two groups of readers (students of Muslim and Catholic/Spanish backgrounds), one text had culturally familiar content, the other culturally unfamiliar content. Within each group, one half of the subjects read the texts in a familiar, well-organized rhetorical format, the other half read the texts in an unfamiliar, altered rhetorical format. Results showed the conditions expected to yield good reading comprehension (familiar content, familiar rhetorical form) did so. Similarly, the conditions expected to yield poor reading comprehension (unfamiliar content, unfamiliar rhetorical form) did so. More interestingly, the results for the “mixed” conditions (familiar content, unfamiliar rhetorical form; unfamiliar content, familiar rhetorical form) indicated that content schemata affected reading comprehension to a greater extent than formal schemata. Specific results are presented and discussed, as are limitations of the study and teaching implications.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pulido, D. (2003) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00217 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
“Formal schema, also called textual schema (Singhal, 1998), is defined as knowledge of language and linguistic conventions, including knowledge of how texts are organized and what the main features of a particular genre of writing are (Alderson, 2000; Carrell, 1987, 1988; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983).”
Background
- Authors
- Carrell, P. L.
- Affiliations
- Southern Illinois University Carbondale (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carrell, Patricia L.
- Venue
- TESOL Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1987-09
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 461
- ISSN
- 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2132937441
- Cited by
- 404
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 66.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- TESOL Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- content schemata, rhetorical structure, cultural familiarity, text structure, second language reading, reading instruction
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