So many learning theories... So little time...

Educators often hear of the term “schema” used to reference the ideas stored in the learner’s repertoire and brought to the learning experience.   

Schema can be simple, mental connections

Or complex, mental diagrams

Bartlett (1932, 1958), the theorist credited with the development of schema theory, posits that information is stored in a framework of understanding whereby new meaning is related for interpretation, storage, and retrieval.  

Interestingly, schema does not require accurate and factual recall of details, but rather features thematic patterns whereby old information influences the understanding of new information (Bartlett, 1932, 1958).   

Although a cognitivism theory, schema theory was presented in a time when behaviorist theories held popularity, causing the schema theory to fall from consideration (Markel, 2014).  Remelhart (1980) identified a significant weakness in the theory when he exposed a variance in the definition of schema/schemata.  His work used the term interchangeably to refer to both the representation of knowledge as well as a structure for organizing and storing information in memory (Remelhart, 1980).   

As original schema theory intended to bridge old information with new information (Bartlett, 1932, 1958), using the term to represent knowledge fails to make the appropriate connections specific to a mental framework.  Richard Anderson (1977) worked to iron out these issues and bring schema theory to an educational context by applying the concept to reading.  He suggested that schema theory employs a top-down approach to constructing knowledge from text (Anderson, 1977).  

In a broader sense, schema theory provides educators with an understanding of how learners come to the instructional setting with an existing structure of old knowledge that impacts the acquisition, organization, and understanding of new knowledge (Markel, 2014).

So let's put this into practice... If schema refers to the mental connections made by the learner to connect new learning with old learning (Bartlett, 1932, 1958), take a look at this image.  What is the FIRST thing that you see?

Do you see an elderly couple?  A guitar-playing duet? A curious young lady? A priceless goblet? Something else?  Chances are good that what you see and the order you see the images is directly related your personal schema and, more specifically, the retrieval process your brain has set up.

Let's try something else.  

Now, using personality tests such as the one above does not tend to yield particularly useful information.  Schmidt and Hunter (1998) found that personality tests were one of the least reliable factors with a validity coefficient of .22 when attempting to predict effective job performance.

Instead, within the scope of instructional design, schema theory can be applied in many areas to assist with memory creation and retrieval (Pappas, 2014).  

Schmidt (1975) explored the use of schema theory in relation to the acquisition of motor skills.  He determined that our ability move in set patterns in response to a situation is related to three factors: a consistent program of motor movement, schema to recall and apply the movement needed based on situational awareness, and schema to recognize mistakes made in the process (Schmidt, 1975).

For a more instructional example, consider the role of schema in reading comprehension ability.  Schema theory can not only be used to more deeply understand the text being read through meaningful connections being made, but Pappas (2014) also give the example of learning a new language as a skill that is benefited by schema theory.  When learning a second language, particularly the written form of the new language, a reader will search for themes and known pieces of information, effectively building their schema, in an attempt to create understanding from a language that is previously unknown (Pappas, 2014).  Within a unit of study, an educator can work to use verbal and nonverbal cues to make connections, build schema, and enhance learning.  Considering that math, science, English, Spanish, sports, drama... are each a culture and language of its own, the application of schema theory into a unit of study in any content area is dramatic!

So how does schema theory play out in a world beyond just education?  Marvin Minsky (1975) attempted to apply the constructs of schema theory to his work as a computer scientist.  Realizing that humans behaved according to stored knowledge, Minsky (1975) concluded that machines likewise needed a frame of information from which to carry out specific actions.  From this conclusion he developed frame theory, breaking down a situation into elements of knowledge that can be transmitted and interpreted by humans and machines (Minsky, 1975).

Kind of wild, isn't it?

References:

Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: general discussion of the conference. Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bartlett, F. C. (1958). Thinking. New York: Basic Books. 

Pappas, C. (2014). Instructional design models and theories: schema theory. Elearning Industry. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/schema-theory

Markel, D. (2014). Learning Theory – Schema Theory. Education Encyclopedia.

Minsky, M. (1975). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. Patrick H. Winston. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Remelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological review. 82(4), 225-260.

Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulleting. 124(2), 262-274.