On the roles of memory, learner schematic knowledge and the teacher orientation in facilitating language learning
By Mahnaz Azad
Abstract
Comprehending the stream of words is a complicated process which involves the integration of both prior-knowledge and incoming information operating within the cognitive system. Content schemata or the back ground knowledge is a factor that influences second and foreign language learning. This article attempts to explore the role of the teacher orientation in facilitating the storage and retrieval of memory and also, in activating schemata in the process of language learning. In this regard, first the structure of memory will be explained briefly and then the notion of schemata and its potential as a more general principle of information processing will be elaborated. Then after, the role of the teacher in activating relevant background knowledge and developing autonomy and independence in students will be presented in details. An effort has been made to restrict the discussion as much as possible; however, the implications presented here can be applied to and drawn on areas of language learning and teaching. While the research in this domain encompasses a great deal of literature which can not be covered in its entirety here, it is hoped that this discussion will provide readers with an overview in this area.
The overview
Prior-knowledge is a key factor in comprehension. If the learner is unable to relate incoming information with his/her existing knowledge base, the constructive process will result in memorization, which is the strategy implemented among L2 learners whose first and second languages are relatively unrelated. For example, in reading comprehension, some times the learners, instead of integrating foreign vocabulary through associations with their existing knowledge and generating new schemata and understanding, generally try to memorize foreign words, which is an ineffective encoding process in comprehension. Comprehension and all the procedures which lead to learning happen at a mysterious system called memory. Before proceeding any further, it seems appropriate to describe the structure of memory briefly as it is relevant to the notion of schemata.
Memory
Traditionally memory has been classified into different categories; the most prominent classification has proposed two types of memory; namely, short-term (STM) and long- term (LTM) memory. STM is the transient memory for events that has just happened while LTM is the long-lasting memory of the events that happened sometimes ago.
Baddeley and Hitch (1974) suggested a model of short-term memory which focused on memory processes and functions not memory structure. They called short-term memory (STM): ‘working memory’ and claimed that information stored temporarily in STM and will be manipulated there to be used in complex processes later (as cited in Anderson, 1994).
Working memory plays an integral role in understanding how L2 learners acquire proficiency in a foreign language. Working memory plays an active role in interpreting and constructing incoming information, by serving as an interface between incoming information and long-term memory. Long-term memory consists of prior-knowledge: scripts (Schank, 1976), schemata (Rumelhart, D.E., 1975), and frames (Minskey, 1975). When incoming information and prior-knowledge are carried into working memory, processed, and then transmitted to long-term memory for storage and retrieval, the integration of new information into existing knowledge structures occurs . If the learner lacks prior-knowledge relating to the incoming information, comprehension will not occur (as cited in Oku, 2002). Prior-knowledge influences the way in which all learners encode new information. For L2 learners, the question remains as to what extent their L1 knowledge influences or contributes to how they encode their L2.
How do we remember?
Memory is selective. It works efficiently because we forget things. When we remember, what is remembered is mostly the gist of information and not the exact verbatim. Remembering is a complex process comprised of three stages: encoding, storage, and retrieval. These three stages are continuously interacting with each other, so encoding something efficiently will improve its storage in memory and make it easier to be retrieved later. Efficient encoding means understanding, organizing, and integrating the incoming information. Organizing the information through rehearsal and chunking is believed to improve retention. Rehearsal can be done as mere repetition which is of little value regarding the future retention and elaborative rehearsal which focuses on the meaning aspects of the information.
Craik and Lockhart (1972) in their level of processing theory proposed that retention of information in memory depends on how deeply that information has been processed at encoding. They differentiation between deep and shallow processing elaborates that the former refers to the underlying proposition (meaning) of the information while the latter refers to surface structure of the sentence(as cited in Oku,2002).
After encoding, similar concepts are stored closer together than unrelated ones. Concepts are stored as local representations; i.e. each aspect of a concept is represented as a single node. The nodes of related concepts are linked together in a hierarchical fashion which embodies the principle of cognitive economy, minimizing the number of representations of each piece of information. Through the processes of location and attachment, the incoming information is located near the related category and then the relationship between the new and old information will be strengthened through attachment. It is at this moment that we can say learning has happened; that is, when all these steps fulfill successfully and efficiently.
Storage of information may happen through different processes, two of the most prominent ones are script and schemata. Script refers to the structured knowledge about a specific situation like a restaurant. The script is frequently shared, so we just need to encode the specific of it and not the generic information. Schemata are the structured knowledge of more general concepts which are part of the existing memory, hence can be activated and remembered easily. As the main focus of this study is on the schemata and its contribution in language learning, devoting a part to various aspects of it appears relevant.
Schemata
The concept of the schema is frequently used as a way of describing the mental structures through which we organize our past experience, make sense of our ongoing experience, and build up expectations about what is to come. Sdorow (1998) defines a schema as ‘a cognitive structure that organizes knowledge about an event or an object and that affects the encoding, storage, and retrieval of information related to it’ (p. 281). Bernstein et al. (1997) give as an example the schema that most Americans have for the concept ‘baseball game’; because of the richness of this schema, ‘simply hearing those words is likely to activate whole clusters of information’, including not only the rules of the game itself but also ‘summer days, hot dogs and stadiums’( p. 247-8).
Scientists have proposed several types of schema. Four types which are especially relevant to how we cope with our daily life and work are classified as follows by Howard (1987):
- ‘Scene schemata; these embody our experience and expectations about how things are arranged in space. Examples are our schemata for faces and landscapes.
- ‘Action schemata’ these represent procedural knowledge, such as how to dance or drive a car. ‘Person schemata’; these give us a mental framework for understanding and predicting the behavior of others. They may relate to specific people, groups of people, or people in general.
- ‘Event schemata; these symbolize our knowledge and expectations about sequences of events, for example, the sequences involved in typing a letter. Event schemata associated with sequences of actions are often called ‘scripts’ (p. 45-50).
Schank & Abelson (1977) have provided the example of the ‘restaurant script’, which can serve here as an example of how schemata function as a basis for understanding and action. All of us, at least in our own culture or subculture, have a script for ‘going to a restaurant’. It includes a particular kind of setting with objects (e.g. tables, menu), roles to be performed (e.g. the customer, the waiter), entry conditions to be satisfied (e.g. the customer is hungry and has money), expected results (e.g. the customer is no longer hungry but has less money) and a sequence of scenes (e.g. entering, ordering, eating exiting). Each of these scenes can be subdivided into typical actions (e.g. entering involves moving into the restaurant, looking at the tables, choosing where to sit, etc.). So, based on this script in mind, when we hear ‘somebody has gone to a restaurant’, we can infer a whole sequence of actions that took place between the person’s entering and his leaving. When we ourselves enter a restaurant, the same script enables us to behave appropriately and predict how others will behave (p. 42).
Many schemata are obviously closely bound to the specific culture in which we live. For example, Iranian people’s script of marriage is different from that of British people. Like wise, our script of going to a mosque or a holy shrine is totally different from Christians’ going to the church .The script that we have for a restaurant or a mosque in Iran might not help us to understand the equivalent places when we travel to remote foreign countries. Also, the dominant schemata for certain animals differ widely between different cultures. For example, in European culture, “owl” is regarded as the symbol of ‘wiseness’, while in our culture it is regarded as the symbol of ‘bad luck’. This influence of culture on schemata has been demonstrated in several studies. The best known is that of Bartlett (1932), who is considered as ‘the father of schema theory’. Bartlett asked British undergraduates first to listen to a Native American story about spirit warriors taking a young man with them into battle and later to recall the story from memory. He found that the students tended to remember aspects that were in line with their own cultural schemata and omit aspects which were specific to the Native American culture. Similar restructuring of events in understanding and memory has been found in other studies, for instance by Steffenson et al. (1979) and Harris et al. (1992).
It follows from the above that, when we go to a foreign country, we experience numerous situations for which we do not have the appropriate schemata for understanding and behaving: we have to learn new ways of dealing with public transport, buying food, interacting with people, interpreting facial expressions, and so on.
Schemata are generally resistant to change. When we encounter information that is inconsistent with our current schemata we often subconsciously shape or distort this information, so that it is ‘assimilated’ to them. Sometimes, however, our schemata undergo a process of ‘accommodation’, changing to fit new evidence. But Howard (1987, p. 130) reflects a view that is common in the literature: ‘Accommodation is difficult to achieve and may take time. However, people prefer not to change their schemata.’
Classroom schemata
Classroom is a place we develop schemata for the world we live in. This is a fact, whether we are teachers, students, or ex-students whose experience of classroom life lies many years in the past. Therefore, when people decide to become teachers, they carry with them into their new profession the schemata that they have developed both inside classrooms (when they were learners themselves) and outside the classroom (from social attitudes, the media, etc.). Weber & Mitchell (1996) describe the ‘cultural roots of teaching schemata’: “Future teachers are former students, influenced in many subtle and not so subtle ways by their past personal experiences with teachers; moreover, they have grown up amongst the myriad of popular images and stereotypes of teaching” (as cited in Littlewood, 1994).
Classroom schemata provide teachers with assumptions about how people learn, conceptions of what it means to be a ‘learner’ and a ‘teacher’, ways of deciding what to do in routine situations and predicting what the effects of these actions will be, ways of interpreting spoken or unspoken signals from learners, and so on. They also provide learners with assumptions and expectations about how teachers and students should behave, what activities count as ‘real learning’, and so on. Of course, no two participants in the classroom situation will have developed exactly the same schemata, since their past experience has always been different, but all participants normally hope that there is at least enough similarity for mutual understanding and cooperation to take place. Senior (1997) calls for the gradual convergence of the participants’ classroom schemata which he refers to as ‘cohesive group’. It is at this point that the distinction between ‘learners’, ‘student-teachers’ and ‘teachers’ fades away. Every teacher has been a learner and indeed is a learner all through his/her life, since his/her schemata are constantly receiving new information from reality, usually assimilating this new information and sometimes accommodating to it and therefore changing.
Littlewood (1994) proposes that the entire set of schemata which aids the teachers make sense of the classroom is their ‘mental map’ of the classroom reality. The schemata are not always conscious; on the contrary, many of them will be developed subconsciously and never will be explicitly explored.
Teachers are all the time in the process of change. Experience brings about small changes every day and ‘reflection’ on teaching may cause a radical alteration in some domains. This may occur, for example, when a new teacher steps in her first classroom session and realizes that there is a world of difference between the reality and the dream classroom in her mind. She may first experience a kind of culture shock but then after, she starts adapting and the gradual change will start to happen (Littlewood, 1994). Whatever the source of change, it should be compatible with the teacher’s present mental map. Indeed the teacher should feel engaged with the idea rather than being imposed by it.
Providing students with relevant schemata through Task-based teaching
A frequently asked question is ‘What task-based teaching is?’Despite the many classifications and definitions for task-based teaching, most of the teachers still do not know what the underlying concept means. Task-based learning is often conducted by the teacher as presenting some discrete items in contextualized forms. Communication is often neglected while the teachers are spending the whole class time on loading students’ memory with the grammatical points of language. However, communication in the classroom climate should be accounted for as the most important goal. If the students are given the opportunity to interact with each other, they can use their peers’ knowledge and fill in the gaps of their knowledge; also it can help stimulate the common schemata among the students which add to the usefulness of the learning environment.
Implications
How to activate the schemata in our classroom is a pertinent question to be asked here. Schemata, as a precious storage of knowledge that students bring with themselves when attending the class can be implemented effectively by the teacher. Providing students with optimal knowledge would lead to activating students’ schemata which subsequently caused efficient learning. This can be done through introducing relevant materials and using familiar texts before presenting the unfamiliar materials. Storing the material in a meaningful way creates the structured mental organization which affects the later retrieval of information. Use of task-based teaching and communicative tasks can help provide the meaningful context, together with the use of role play, pair- and group- work, and classroom discussions. The use of these techniques can activate students’ schemata and pave the way for introducing new information which is supposed to be processed easier in this way.
Individual teachers can develop their own practices along these dimensions and maintain the important contact with their current mental map. For instance, a teacher may use pair-work in the classroom together with other traditional methods. In this way, s/he can develop responsibility and confidence in students. The teacher gives the students an element of choice over what they wish to convey. This trend will help the students share their back ground information and use their memory storage. The process can be progressed using role-plays based on simple and familiar situations. Step by step, the element of learner-independence is increased as the teacher, little by little; relinquishes control over his/ her class. This same process may be applied in the introduction of group-work, first with a high degree of teacher-direction (and perhaps focus on form) and gradually with ever- increasing learner independence.
By concerning these various aspects, teachers can enter an innovative path in which they can control the process of learning and teaching and at the same time pave the way for the students to move towards independence and acknowledge their autonomy and self-confidence. As a matter of fact, teachers tend to move toward both form-oriented and meaning- oriented instructions as they are involving in the process of facilitating students’ learning. It can be seen as an ongoing process; there is always a balanced range of activities from different points along the teacher-directed/learner- independent continuum and the form-oriented/meaning-oriented continuum. A teacher can then move backwards and forwards along this continuum, as required by the students needs. The teachers should feel engaged in their profession. This affiliation can be achieved through communication and negotiation between the teacher and the students.
The teachers should feel themselves as a part of the class, even as a learner who is to learn many things from other participants in the classroom. The gap between the new ideas and many teachers’ current map of reality emerges from the point that many experienced teachers have problems in adjusting their role as a ‘transmitter’ of knowledge to a’ facilitator’ of students learning, which suggest that some teachers are yet unable to conceptualize the alternative views on how learning happens (Littlewood, 1994).
Many of the teachers can not make a bridge between the traditional and innovative methods of teaching. They may choose recent techniques in teaching while sacrificing the fundamental points of the old ways. Focusing on meaning does not imply that they should ignore the form of language. Sometimes the teachers use pair- or group work activities to encourage interaction between the students but the focus can be placed at the same time on the grammatical accuracy of the students.
The classroom world in reality is a place that requires the optimal engagement of its participants, teacher and students, in the process of communication and negotiation. Through these processes, the teacher can involve the students in a way that they would be able to take control of their own learning in the future. Teacher-fronted classes are not nowadays as respected as before. The emergence of innovative teaching, altering the attention toward the learner as the central focus of the program; the attempt to train students as independent learners and not just as the passive receivers of knowledge or the jars to be filled one day all point to a paradigm change in our field.
REFERENCES
Adler, R.B., & Rodman, G. (1991). Understanding Human Communication. (4th ed.).
Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Anderson, J.R. (1994). Learning and memory. New York: John Wiley &Sons.
Andrade, J., & May, J. (2004). Cognitive psychology. London: BIOS Scientific.
Baddeley, A.D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bernstein, D.A., Clarke-Stewart, A., Roy, E.J., & Wickens, C.D. (1997). Psychology. (4th ed.). Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin.
Harris, R.J., Schoen, L.M. & Hensley, D.L. (1992). A cross-cultural study of story memory. Journal of Cross-Cultura Psychology, 23(1), 133-147.
Howard, R.W. (1987). Concepts and schemata: An Introduction. London: Cassell, 13.
Littlewood, W. (1994). Adapting classroom schemata. [Electronic version]. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Oku, T. (2002). Reading comprehension. Retrieved February 2009 from http://www.mimasaka.ac.jp/intro/bulletin.html
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sdorow, L.M. (1998). Psychology. (4th ed.). Boston, Mass: McGraw Hill.
Senior, R. (1997). Transforming language classes into bonded groups. ELT Journal 51(1), 3-11.
Steffensen, M.S., Joag-dev, C. & Anderson, R.C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 15(1), 10-29.
***This research paper is the intellectual property of Mahnaz Azad. Contact Mahnaz at mahnaz.azad AT yahoo DOT com.
1 comment