Biológicos

types concerns the main effects and interaction effects of a combination of schemata. The combined effects of schemata on reading comprehension found thus far are of linguistic-formal or linguistic-content or formal-content, or combinations of pairs of these three, but no study has been identified that considers the effects of all three simultaneously.

2.3.2.1 Effects of formal and linguistic schemata on reading comprehension

Studies of reading comprehension for formal and linguistic schemata reflect consistent findings. Francis and Hallams’ (2000) study examining the importance of text extracts in different genres to mature students’ linguistic ability for understanding concludes that post-graduate students doing Masters found difficulties in understanding text extracts, and that their difficulties were due to an adequate knowledge of the language and the structure of the genre. Thus, linguistic and formal schemata have been determined to be initially facilitating factors for reading comprehension. Similarly, Kobayashi (2002) has found that text structures, regardless of the response formats used as measures, significantly affect the reading comprehension of learners of various proficiency levels.

Readers’ proficiency levels appear to impact differently in relation to text structures supporting an interaction effect between formal and linguistic schemata. Caillies, Denhiere and Jhean-Larose (1999) found advanced readers performed better in the hierarchically-organised text version than they did in the causally-organised text version, whereas intermediate and beginner learners performed better in the causally-organised version. The performance of the advanced learners was more similar to that of intermediate learners than the beginner learners in the causally-organised

version. Linderholm et al. (2000), who investigated the effect of causally- repaired easy and difficult texts on more- and less-skilled readers, found that not only the more-, but also the less-skilled readers were affected by the causally-repaired difficult text but not by the causally-repaired easy text. Kobayashi (2002) and Sharp (2002) found that text structure types contributed significant difference to students’ proficiency grouping (more- and less-skilled readers) in facilitating reading comprehension.

Divergent findings on the interaction effects between formal and linguistic schemata can be largely accounted for by the utilisation of different research designs, particularly in relation to the various response formats used as measures of reading comprehension. For example, Sharp (2002) found, using cloze test and qualitative recall, that the four types of text structure contributed a significant difference in the reading comprehension of students at all proficiency levels, whereas when using quantitative recall, there was no significant difference. In addition, by using a cloze test, it was found that the loosely-organised text, description, was easier to understand across all proficiency groups. Similarly, Kobayashi (2002) found, when using an open- ended response format that association text, which is considered as the loosely-organised association text was better understood by the two higher proficiency groups than was the more tightly-organised text. Using a cloze test and summary writing, it was found that the three proficiency groups performed differently across the text structure types, especially the high and low proficiency levels.

2.3.2.2 Effects of formal and content schemata on reading comprehension

A number of studies have considered whether formal and content schemata affect reading comprehension, either as main effects or interaction effects when considered together. Kendeou and Van den Broek (2007) found main effects on reading comprehension for both content and formal schemata. Wylie and McGuiness (2004) found no interaction effects on reading comprehension with content and text structure, but there was a main effect of

text structure although no main effect of content. In contrast to the main effects of Wylie and McGuiness’s study above, Cekik (2007) finds content schemata to be only a main effect, with no main effect for formal schemata. In contrast, McNamara and Kintsch (1996) conclude there is an interaction effect between content and formal schemata, but no main effect for either. In accounting for these somewhat diverse findings, the level of the readers’ familiarity with content and form needs to be considered. Carrell (1987) shows that when participants are familiar with the content and the form, comprehension is good; content is the strongest predictor and is more facilitative than form. Conversely, Roller (1990) finds that text structure is more important than content, when the content is fairly unfamiliar to the reader. In relation to the different types of recall as measures, different rank order of text structure types has been deserved (Wylie & McGuinness 2004), with those readers employing delayed recall for tightly-organised text performing better than for loosely-organised texts, whereas immediate recall generated better performance for the loosely-organised texts than for the tightly-organised texts.

2.3.2.3 Effects of linguistic and content schemata on reading comprehension

It has been found in studies of the combined effects of content and linguistic schemata, that both content and linguistic schemata play a significant function in facilitating reading comprehension. Carrell and Wise (1998) explore the interaction effects of topic interest and background knowledge on ESL reading comprehension and find that language proficiency level significantly affects reading comprehension of content familiarity. Pulido (2003) examines the role of topic familiarity, reading proficiency and passage sight vocabulary in facilitating incidental vocabulary acquisition, finding a strong effect for reading proficiency, contrastive effect for topic familiarity and no effect for passage sight vocabulary.

Which is the more dominant, content or linguistic schemata, in facilitating reading comprehension is a contentious issue. Johnson (1982)

finds that content schemata play a greater role than linguistic schemata in facilitating reading comprehension of cultural origin prose. Ahmadi, Keshavarz and Atai (2007) support Johnson’s conclusion that content schemata has a greater effect than linguistic schemata on reading comprehension; however, Nodoushan’s (2007) study shows that language proficiency has the greatest effect on the participants overall and upon their differential test and task performance, with content familiarity being the least influential variable.

The effect of text content familiarity appears to interact with linguistic factors, such as proficiency level. Johnson (1982) finds that a text that is familiar for the reader of any proficiency levels is better recalled than the one that is not familiar. According to Voss and Silfies (1996), more topically- developed text content is easier to comprehend than non-topically developed text. In contrast to the above findings, however, Carrell’s (1983) study shows higher proficiency students better recall of content unfamiliar texts than content-familiar texts, a finding supported by Lee (1986). Koh (1985) and Peretz and Shoham (1990) similarly support the notion that participants do not necessarily perform their best on texts with familiar content. Carrell’s (1983) study demonstrates that all the three types of background knowledge significantly contribute to the readers’ recall for a native speaker, and for those familiar with content area who were advanced ESL students, but not for Level 4 ESL students. This suggests that reading research based on schemata needs to consider the readers’ proficiency levels as well as their language background status as factors in the facilitation of reading comprehension.